Young Offenders: Review of Restraint

Lord Judd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to the recommendation of INQUEST in its submission on the Review of Restraint that an independent inquiry should be established to examine the wider issues concerning the treatment of children in the youth justice system.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, INQUEST made the suggestion earlier in a letter to my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor. My right honourable friend gave detailed consideration of the proposal in his reply. He concluded that the major questions are already being addressed; for example, by the joint review of the use of restraint in juvenile secure settings. For that reason, a public inquiry would not be justified.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that to have a justice system in which, since 1990, 30 children in custody, and therefore in the care of the state, and 201 young people aged 18 to 19, have died, and where victims' families have had to wait up to two years to secure an inquest, suggests that there has to be an urgent, fundamental, root-and-branch review of what we are doing with our youth justice system and whether we are not manufacturing criminals?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend would acknowledge that, notwithstanding many of the issues and problems that he raised, considerable emphasis has been placed on improving the youth justice system in recent years and ensuring that, as far as possible, young people are given programmes that help them to be rehabilitated and prevent reoffending. Any death of a child in custody is of course very much to be regretted. The aim of the Youth Justice Board is to do everything it can to ensure that that does not happen in the future and that those children are properly cared for and protected.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, the review of restraint has been awaited with considerable interest by those of us who are concerned about the use of restraint on children. Will the Government publish the review and, if so, when? Given that the review was set up in response to concerns that emerged during the inquest on the restraint-related death of Gareth Myatt, why have the Government still not formally responded to the rule 43 report by the deputy coroner, Judge Pollard?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, the review of restraint was established following the debate in your Lordships' House last summer on the statutory instrument which concerned the use of restraint. I understand that the review is due to report to Ministers by April this year. The chairs are consulting a wide range of stakeholders before reporting. Ministers will then consider the conclusions and make any decisions regarding what action needs to be taken and any publication.

Lord Henley: My Lords, we spent much of yesterday— in fact, virtually the whole of yesterday—debating the entire youth justice system. We have now had a request from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for a further inquiry into these matters following the Government's own review of restraint and other matters. Bearing in mind the chaos that seems to exist in the Minister's department, the Ministry of Justice, does he not think that it might be better if we just took away the whole of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, went home early, and the Government thought out these matters slightly better and came back with some considered proposals?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: No, my Lords. The Ministry of Justice is an excellent department, which is making a great deal of sense in co-ordinating its different responsibilities. We should not ignore the improvements that have been made in relation to young people in the criminal justice system. As I said yesterday, over our many happy hours of debate, there is a lot more that also needs to happen. However, I think that the Bill is perfectly ordered and rounded and we should proceed swiftly to take it through your Lordships' House so that we can get it on the statute book.

The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I take it that the Minister would agree that it is quite indefensible that different standards should prevail in our national criteria to do with the care and protection of children and in the criminal justice system. I invite him also to agree that that means that the use of strip-searching and segregation in the criminal justice system for children is something that needs a very sharp examination, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, recommended in his report for the Howard League a couple of years ago.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for that question. With regard to strip-searching, I understand that the Youth Justice Board plans to have a review of it very shortly—and obviously we would be very interested to see the outcome. The principal objective of the youth justice system has to be the prevention of offending, because it is within the criminal justice system. However, alongside that, of course the welfare considerations of the child must also be considered.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, later this year the United Kingdom will be visited again by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The last time that it came here, it produced an absolutely devastating report and an indictment of the way in which we were looking after young people. In view of all that has been said in relation to the Bill and other aspects, is the Minister confident that this time we shall receive a clean slate from the committee?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall not forecast the conclusions of that visit. All I will say is that in relation to restraint we have established the review, and we should see what the outcome is. We have debated the issue extensively and I suspect that this afternoon we will debate it more. We are committed to a youth justice system that has as its principal aim the reduction and prevention of offending. It does take account of the welfare of the child, with a lot of emphasis on rehabilitation, and resettlement in the case of those young people who have gone into custody, but with much more emphasis on community sentences when that is appropriate. That is very much the way forward.

Squirrels

Lord Rotherwick: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What impact studies are carried out prior to licences being given for the release of grey squirrels into the wild?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, in fulfilling its statutory role in licensing non-native releases under Section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, Natural England assesses any actual or potential impact on native species and the environment. For example, before granting a licence to release grey squirrels, Natural England takes into account geographical information on the presence or likely presence of the red squirrel.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. In his reply to the Question on grey squirrels asked by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, on 23 January, he emphasised that only six squirrels have been released. However, is he aware of Joan Ruddock's letter to Mr Adam Afriyie in another place on 18 December in which, as Minister with responsibility for policy in this area, she states that Natural England granted licences for 257 greys to be released in 2007? Releasing six grey squirrels is surely a very different thing from granting licences to release 257.
	According to figures from Defra and the Forestry Commission, 257 breeding greys will produce about 1,800 squirrels in one year—about the same number as that managed by the employee whom I employ to kill squirrels in protecting SSSI woodland. So why in another place has the Minister with responsibility for policy in this area gone against the published views of Defra, Natural England, the Forestry Commission and our legal obligations under the Berne convention and the EU habitats and birds directives?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. When I answered the Question a couple of weeks ago, I answered the Question I had been asked about how many licences had been issued. I went on to talk about how many squirrels had actually been released. The two things are not necessarily the same. In 2006, for example, 147 squirrels were permitted to be released, but only six were released. The figure which the noble Lord gave on the number of licences issued does not necessarily represent the number of squirrels released under those licences. Natural England may not have allowed it for some reason. So there is probably no problem at all with the figures; one has to look at what one is asking. The latest year for which we have figures on releases of squirrels is 2006, and the figure is six, but more than six licences were issued.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, I wonder if any impact studies could have a special focus on the Isle of Wight, which is an exclusive and much cherished safe haven for the red squirrel? Any thought of releasing grey squirrels on the Isle of Wight might make the islanders rise up in rebellion. In asking this supplementary question, I should perhaps declare an interest as the owner of a border terrier which is allergic to all squirrels irrespective of colour.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I wrote "Isle of Wight" on the front of my brief because, the last time I was asked about this, a noble Lord told me in the Corridor, "Next time, make sure you give a plug to the Isle of Wight". So if anyone wants to see red squirrels, the Isle of Wight is the place to go. There are no greys on the Isle of Wight and, what is more, no greys are allowed. That is the reality.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission. I sympathise with the Minister's view and hesitancy about taking action against red squirrels in most of the south of England. But in the north of England it is a different problem. Does he agree that we need to create buffer zones in the vicinity of the red squirrels so that they might survive? Has he had time to review my suggestion that no licences for the release of grey squirrels should be issued in the four northern counties, parts of north Yorkshire and the county of Lancaster?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I think that my noble friend meant grey squirrels when he said red. However, with regard to what he asked me a couple of weeks ago, I can inform the House that Natural England and the Forestry Commission have looked into the matter, which is hardly surprising given that my noble friend is chairman of the Forestry Commission. Natural England has now decided to make a change on a precautionary basis and to increase the buffer zone around the nearby refuges in the north of England. The change will come into force immediately and any existing licences that cover that area will be reissued. I am grateful to my noble friend for asking the original question.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the Minister will be happy to know, since Defra funds the project, that since this Question was last raised, in the past two and a half weeks, we have taken out—I refrain from using the word slaughter after the publicity last time—more than 1,200 squirrels. It is quite possible that Northumberland will be totally free of grey squirrels by the middle of the summer. In the light of this success, will he say whether Defra will review its policy on the eradication of grey squirrels in large parts of the country?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord: it seems that this is one area where Defra can really claim to be getting value for money in regards to wildlife. We are certainly happy to review that success. We need to build on it. However, since I last answered the Question, I have also discovered the famous Wild Boar Hotel at Crook near Windermere. It is doing very well in serving up grey squirrel canapés and pancakes.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, why are licences given at all for the release of these nasty little pests which do enormous damage?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, they are released only on welfare grounds, and only six were released out of a population of 2 million. I think that that is not unreasonable. They are released only in areas where they are not a danger to songbirds, to forestry or to red squirrels, and welfare grounds are taken into account when licences are issued. As far as I know, there has been no adverse reaction to the release of those six.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many staff are employed in this business of issuing licences and performing the impact studies? In view of the reduction in staff that Defra is seeking, would it not be a good idea if the Government decided that squirrels are vermin and that they should not be saved under any circumstances, thereby saving a great deal of staffing in Defra?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I do not know how many staff work on this, but it is minimal. Natural England is the operator of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and it is a non-departmental public body. It deals with all kinds of wildlife, both in licensing and in determining what action should be taken. Frankly, this probably adds up to a few paragraphs of work a day for someone. I repeat, however, that more licences are issued than squirrels released.

Local Government: Representing the Future

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I declare an interest as an old, white, middle-class, male councillor. Despite that, I beg leave to ask the Government the following Question:
	How they will respond to the Councillors Commission report Representing the Future.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Councillors Commission report was published in December. The Government welcome the report and the stimulus to debate that it provides. We are examining the recommendations in more detail and are consulting on the issues it raises. An overall government response to the report and recommendations will be published after Easter.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and look forward to the government response. Is it not the case that if the Government want to get a more diverse range of people actively involved on councils, rather than using gimmicks such as issuing local gongs, qualifications and degrees in being a councillor, redundancy payments, pensions, exit interviews and even free focus leaflets—if I read the report correctly—for councillors to distribute in their wards, they ought to return to local authorities the powers and status that they had 30 years ago? Within local authorities, they should return to councillors the powers, respect and status that they had 10 years ago.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we did much of that in the Local Government Public Involvement in Health Bill, which the noble Lord and I had the pleasure of debating at inordinate length last year. We should give credit to the councillors who are trying so hard to address a very serious problem. We have very little diversity now; much less than we used to have. For example, only one-third of councillors are women and only 4 per cent of councillors come from black and ethnic minority groups. We really need to do more. The Councillors Commission's report is excellent; it has a range of very serious recommendations, which we will look at very positively.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is a matter of regret to me that a very serious report seems to indicate that the ideal of serving one's community is no longer enough motivation to get people who are of sufficient quality properly to do the job of councillor. Will the noble Baroness tell the House what the cost of these proposals would be if they were implemented in full? Would that not properly be a charge exclusively borne by the ratepayer, or would it become part of general expenditure, which would then be eligible for a government grant?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is interesting that the report reflects that the majority of councillors say that they derive enormous satisfaction from their roles. The report ends by asking, "Why don't they say so?". That is surely the best incentive to get people into local government. In terms of how much it would cost, there are a range of proposals, from reducing the voting age to 16, to much else, which will be considered in due course, perhaps by a Speaker's Commission. When we review these, we will look at affordability, together with all the legal and other implications that the recommendations hold for us.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, this is a very important and worthwhile review. The Minister has given us a list of people that the Government hope to see representing the people in their communities, but she did not mention younger people. It is very important that we get people from a whole spectrum of age groups representing their own peer groups. Are the Government doing anything about this?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it was a very important aspect of the commission's consideration. It came up with the celebration of good practice; for example, young mayors elected by young people in places such as Lewisham and Newham. In addition, the Prime Minister's speech in July anticipated the establishment of a youth citizenship commission, which will look at how schools, colleges and all other educational institutions will engage with politics. We have just reviewed key stages 3 and 4 of the national curriculum on citizenship, with a view to building up the element of that curriculum that connects with local democracy.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, how are the Government going to respond to the proposal in the report that council by-elections should be abolished in favour of a sort of reserve system? Does she not agree that if local democracy is to be healthy, people who come on to councils must have their own personal mandate and not come in through the back door on someone else's coat-tails?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we have expressed some reservations about that proposal, and there have been demonstrations in Wales on the process. It will be considered along with all the other recommendations for term limits and so on that affect the operation of councils.

Lord Soley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the problem is not just about the resources and the ability of councillors to deal with problems? The report indicates that in a number of ways. Is it not also about the problem of ordinary people in society not knowing how to use a councillor? One of the problems in our political system is that people often think that they must go to their Member of Parliament first because they see them as being at the top of the pyramid of power, instead of recognising that in many cases the first port of call should be the councillor. That is a difficult link to make. It is not apparent to me from the report that we are addressing that in the detail that is needed.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, one of the most important recommendations in the report is recommendation 1, which looks at how local government can promote the democratic process and address the question of people not having enough information. One of the paradoxes is that while 60 per cent of people think that their services have improved, only half think that their council is better. This is about closing that gap. A lot of it is about how we explain and get more out of the work of councillors, particularly ward councillors, who now have a duty to engage with and involve local people.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister said that she thinks most local councillors find the work very interesting and satisfying. Does that mean that she is not aware of the great dissatisfaction of councillors with the new cabinet structure, where they find a great dichotomy between those who are cabinet members and who therefore know everything that is going on in the council, and others who are not in the cabinet and who find that they are not informed to the extent that they were before this new arrangement?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we discussed in the local government Bill what impact the cabinet system has over the committee system and certainly there are issues around that. The report addressed that and said that local government is no less important or interesting a place for councillors to be. The emphasis in the Bill now has changed to the engagement between the ward councillor and the individual constituency. There is a major job to be done to get people to understand what councillors do and what they can do for them. It is a challenge to which most councillors would really respond.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister quite sure, in the light of recent events not very far from here, that paying councillors more and giving them greater expenses is likely to improve their standing in the eyes of the electorate?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I do not think that there is any appetite for putting councillors on a professional footing. There is no indication in the report about that. Satisfaction is still derived from the notion of public service, which we are very glad about. Most councillors see serving the public as a privilege. While there are issues around allowances, they have to be considered in that context and not as a way of creating a different professional class.

Kenya

Lord Sheikh: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What assistance they are providing to resolve the crisis in Kenya.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, UK Ministers and officials have been involved in intensive diplomatic efforts across Africa and with international partners to urge regional engagement, an end to violence and dialogue. We have given our full support to the Annan mediation mission. There can be no business as usual until the current crisis is resolved in a way that respects the democratic will of the Kenyan people. The Department for International Development has provided £2.2 million for humanitarian relief.

Lord Sheikh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The problems in Kenya arose following the election on 27 December between Mr Kibaki's PNU and Mr Odinga's ODM. There has been tribal violence, bloodshed and disputes concerning land. There was bloodshed in Eldoret, Kisumu and the Rift Valley. What is the Minister's assessment of the election? Does he feel that there needs to be a rerun or a government of national unity?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. The election was simply not satisfactory. Doubts are left as to the real outcome of that election and we can have no confidence in a government formed on the basis of the announced election results. The EU observers, as well as those of the Commonwealth and others, have all made it clear that the elections fell far short of acceptable international standards. The EU Commissioner Louis Michel is currently en route to Kenya to deliver the preliminary election report of those EU observers.
	On the noble Lord's second question, we think there is so much tension in the country at the moment that a rerun of the elections would be enormously dangerous. At the very minimum, a government of national unity, to be followed at some future point by further elections, seems the most likely and sensible way forward.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I welcome the enhanced mediation process under former Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the apparent acceptance by the parties that the process should be completed within seven days. Does this also imply that the parties will accept whatever verdict the Kofi Annan mediation team come up with, including a rerun of the elections at some future date? On the delivery of humanitarian relief, does the noble Lord agree that the obstruction of relief in western Kenya by the continuing violence there and the interruption of supplies from neighbouring countries through the port of Mombasa might warrant the referral of Kenya to the Security Council as a threat to peace?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord makes good points. First, the Annan panel has already dealt with the humanitarian issues. Both sides have committed to the establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission, to agree an invitation to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to send an investigation team to visit Kenya, and to the right of freedom of expression and assembly, which led immediately to the lifting of the ban on live broadcasts. They have also committed to the need to deal with the resettlement of those displaced and the provision of adequate security. The talks have now moved on to the more difficult political issues. I spoke to Kofi Annan a few hours ago. He said that both sides had made their opening political presentations and he felt that the hard bargaining would continue this afternoon.
	On the role of the Security Council, it has already made one presidential statement. Yesterday the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon briefed the council on his own visit, and that is likely to be followed by a further statement. We certainly agree that it may now become an agenda item of the council because there are significant regional implications. I was in southern Sudan last week and saw them in the increase of the price of fuel. I met President Museveni of Uganda later in the week, who confirmed that fuel and food prices in Uganda had gone up significantly, too, as a result of this crisis.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, the United Nations is engaged and senior African leaders are engaged. Does my noble friend see any role at all for the Commonwealth? Given the feeling of "winner takes all", is there any prospect of power sharing before a possible rerun of elections?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, my noble friend rightly draws attention to the role of the Commonwealth. I have been in regular touch with Don McKinnon, the Commonwealth Secretary-General—most recently yesterday. At the moment there is room for only one negotiation, that of Kofi Annan. Obviously we are considering referring the Kenyan situation to CMAG, the ministerial committee of the Commonwealth, which deals with matters of this kind. But we want first to see the outcome of the Annan negotiations. Certainly there will be a role for the Commonwealth in supporting the strengthening of the Electoral Commission, and perhaps even the strengthening of the justice system, both of which are critical if confidence in government institutions is to be restored.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am glad to hear the Minister say that he thought the tensions were so great that, for the time being, talking of a further rerun of the election would not be practical. Does he agree that there has been a tendency, particularly in the British press, to take sides and to depict Mr Raila Odinga as the wronged party, whereas, of course, there is major skulduggery on both sides? Therefore, would he counsel that we not only avoid taking sides but that we avoid any further encouragement of massive demonstrations, as some of us argued from the start, because such demonstrations lead yet again to more bloodshed and more horror and that the concentration should be, as he rightly says, on urging some kind of government coalition and coming together of the two parties, so that they can counsel both of their tribal followers—Luo and Kikuyu—to stop killing each other?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. In a situation in which 1,000 have been killed and 300,000 displaced, it seems inappropriate to move immediately to elections. There needs to be a cooling off period. Trust needs to be restored. While the conduct of the election is the immediate trigger to the violence, there are underlying causes and, I suspect, as the noble Lord suggests, certainly plenty of blame to be attributed to both sides. Hence the importance of an investigation by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and of a truth and reconciliation commission to assign blame where blame is due.

National Security: Chilcot Report

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"The Government are today publishing the results of work on the use of communications intercepts as evidence: the report of the committee of privy counsellors, drawn from the three major parties chaired by the right honourable Sir John Chilcot GCB. I am grateful to Sir John, Lord Hurd, Lord Archer of Sandwell and the right honourable Member for Berwick for that report. It is thorough, measured, detailed, and unanimous; and it properly reflects both the seriousness and the complexity of the questions that their committee was asked to address. "Let me again pay tribute to our security agencies for all that they do—quietly and effectively—in the defence of our country. I have met and listened to those who lead our agencies, and many who serve in them and I praise their expertise, professionalism and courage, often in the most testing and dangerous of circumstances, but always in the best interests of our country. I acknowledge—as we all acknowledge—that what they do defends our freedom, protects our society, and saves lives. "The use of intercept in evidence characterises a central dilemma that we face as a free society: that of preserving our liberties and the rule of law, while at the same time keeping our nation safe and secure. In July, in the first Statement I made on security to the House, I said that I favoured the principle of using intercept material as evidence in criminal cases if, but only if, a way could be found to do so while protecting the higher interests of national security. I therefore invited the cross-party Chilcot committee to advise on,
	'whether a regime to allow the use of intercepted material in court can be devised that facilitates bringing cases to trial while meeting the overall imperative to safeguard national security'.
	"Today I am publishing a version of the Chilcot committee's report. The committee itself has prepared this version, which omits, in the interests of national security, certain sensitive facts and arguments. Its main conclusions and recommendations, however, are exactly those of the full report. Briefly, the report examines in detail both the potential benefits of accepting intercept as evidence, and the risks that might arise from such acceptance. However, it concludes that it should be possible to find a way to use some intercept material as evidence, provided—and only provided—that certain key conditions can be met. These conditions relate to the most vital imperative of all, that of safeguarding our national security. The Government accept this recommendation and take the accompanying conditions very seriously. "Intercepts are strictly controlled under the 2000 legislation. Interception is allowed only if it is necessary to obtain information which could not be acquired in another way, and any interception must be proportionate to what it seeks to achieve. "The relevant decisions of Ministers are overseen by a senior judge, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, who reports at least annually. An investigatory powers tribunal exists to consider complaints from the public and has powers to order appropriate remedies. The most recent figures for numbers of interception warrants are contained in the Interception Commissioner's annual report, published on 28 January—1,435 intercept warrants were issued in the last nine months of 2006. That compares with 2,407 in the previous 15 months."The Chilcot report notes that there are already limited circumstances in civil and terrorist proceedings where intercept can be used in evidence. Each of these instances includes appropriate protections, such as closed proceedings, to ensure that the use of intercept does not put our national security at risk. For any new regime, the Chilcot report sets down conditions which start from the proposition that,
	'any material risk to the strategic capability of the UK's intelligence agencies would be unacceptable',
	and,
	'any disclosure of interception capabilities could have a profound impact on national security'.
	This is right."The report also says that any resulting reduction in inter-agency co-operation,
	'could have a profound impact on law enforcement agencies' ability to combat serious crime and terrorism in the UK'.
	The Government also agree with that assessment. "The report sets out nine conditions in detail. These relate to complex and important issues, including: giving the intercepting agencies the ability to retain control over whether their material is used in prosecutions; ensuring that disclosure of material cannot be required against the wishes of the agency originating the material; protecting the current close co-operation between intelligence and law enforcement agencies, which is crucial; and ensuring also that agencies cannot be required to transcribe or make notes of material beyond a standard of detail they deem necessary. "The committee, which reported to us, acknowledges that further extensive work is needed to see whether and how these and other conditions, which are intended to protect sensitive techniques, safeguard resources, and ensure that intercept can still be used effectively for intelligence, can be met. This is a unanimous recommendation that the Government accept. We will proceed to develop a detailed implementation plan under which material might be made available to be used in criminal cases in England and Wales, subject—and strictly subject—to meeting all the Chilcot conditions."The report is clear that if the conditions could not be met then intercept as evidence should not be introduced, and the Government accept that. Similarly, the committee recommends that, in the event of a regime being introduced which later fails to meet the Chilcot conditions or otherwise threatens our security, that regime should be removed pending the introduction of another, under which the conditions can once again be met. The Government also accept that recommendation. "The report also states that the committee has seen no evidence to suggest that the need for measures such as control orders would be reduced by the introduction of intercept as evidence. Designing a regime to meet the Chilcot conditions will require, as the committee notes, a substantial programme of work covering legal, operational and technical issues. This work must involve and engage the intelligence agencies, government departments, the legal system, and those responsible for communications."The Chilcot team has made it clear to me that the necessary work should be led by an implementation team within government and that that team should move ahead comprehensively and quickly. But the team has also told me that it would not expect the work to be concluded in time to inform the Counter-Terrorism Bill currently before Parliament. "The Government strongly believe that it is in the national interest to draw on a wide range of expert external advice. The cross-party nature of the Chilcot report has been of great value. I am therefore grateful for the agreement of opposition parties that Sir John Chilcot, Lord Archer of Sandwell, the right honourable Member for Berwick, and another member to be nominated, will advise on privy counsellor terms during the next stage of the work. "The Chilcot report also notes that communications technology is changing, and changing rapidly, with the switch towards internet protocol communications and the clear implications that that brings for our security. Accordingly, we have launched the interception modernisation programme to update our capability to ensure that under these new circumstances our national interests will continue to be protected. The new regime for intercept as evidence must be designed to work safely and effectively for this new capability too. "As the Chilcot report states, the challenges ahead are complex and must not, and will not, be underestimated, but the Government acknowledge and endorse the valuable work of the Chilcot committee and are grateful for the committee's support in our continuing efforts to meet the double challenge that we face as a nation. The challenge is to at all times and without fail protect our nation's security while advancing the rule of law. This we will always seek to do. I commend this Statement to the House."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It is impossible to hear such a Statement without paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. After all, he has used his presence here to press this idea on Government for years and it is but one more example of how much this House will lose when the noble and learned Lords are excluded from those Benches.
	Many will wonder why the Government did not act earlier on the issue on the noble and learned Lord's advice rather than waiting for the work of not only this committee but now yet another one to come. Perhaps the Government should consult more with the noble and learned Lord. I also join the noble Baroness in thanking the committee, most notably the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and my noble friend Lord Hurd of Westwell. As the House will know, my party has for some time advocated the admissibility of intercept evidence in court. It was my right honourable friend Mr Cameron who suggested that a cross-party committee of privy counsellors should look at how intercept evidence might be used.
	Of course we will want to study the report carefully, but it seems clearly to accept that intercept should be used, but also importantly to offer guidance on the vital question of how to use intercept to secure convictions while not imperilling national security. Our country has been targeted, hit and some families left pained and grieving, but thanks to the brilliance of our security services we have prevented many other atrocities. We need to defend our homeland and the safety and capability of our security services must be paramount. We must therefore give the fullest weight to their concerns. We must protect security service personnel and we must protect the vital intelligence-gathering techniques. We must, as the Statement says, have the flexibility to adjust to communication by new internet protocol technologies. We also need to ensure that the use of intercept in court does not jeopardise a fair trial.
	Will the noble Baroness confirm that the Crown Prosecution Service is clear that the use of intercept will lead to fewer abortive trials? Can she say whether any assessment has been made of how many more terrorists could have been brought to book had intercept evidence been available? Does the noble Baroness agree with the report that Australia, a common law country, also at war with terror, shows how intercept could bring benefits without increasing danger to intelligence services?
	I am convinced we now need to move forward, so let me ask about implementation. What is the timing? Will there be yet another Bill on interception later this Session, or in the next Session of Parliament? I hear it being said that implementation might take more than two years. That is patently ridiculous. Can the noble Baroness say whether there is any impediment to speedy implementation, and if so, what it is? I find it disappointing that proposals will not be ready for inclusion in the Counter-Terrorism Bill. I make it clear that we would consider recommitment of that Bill if we would help material to be introduced at a later stage.
	But let me also be blunt on another matter. We favour use of intercept because we think it a useful and effective tool in fighting terror, but we oppose firmly large-scale overriding of habeas corpus and the bringing in of a system, wholly alien to our tradition, of ever longer detention without trial. After long and painful discussion, this House reluctantly accepted temporary provision of 28-day detention in terrorist cases. Given the further work being done following the Chilcot report, does the noble Baroness accept that it would be wholly counterproductive to force a phoney political row about 42-day detention? The former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is against it, as is the former Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith; and I have not exactly seen the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, waving banners in its favour. This House will not and should not brook our ancient liberties being played with as meat for the spin doctors.
	Will the noble Baroness give an undertaking that so long as the work following the Chilcot report goes on there will be no question of her pressing legislation to extend detention without trial? If she will not give that undertaking, as Leader of the House, perhaps she could take that message back to her Cabinet colleagues as clearly and as firmly as she likes.
	Finally, since this Statement is on intercept—and following past concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed—can the noble Baroness say whether the Wilson doctrine applies to Members of this House? No doubt, as Leader of the House, she has asked this: can she give an assurance that no Members of this House have been bugged while going about their duties?

Lord McNally: My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement. I agree with the Prime Minister that the central dilemma we face in a free society is that of preserving our liberties and the rule of law while at the same time keeping our nation safe and secure. This House has played a key part in retaining that balance in recent years. I join the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I pay tribute also to the members from these Benches, my noble friends Lord Thomas, Lord Lester and Lord Goodhart. They have worked to keep that balance when measures were brought before this House.
	I share the Prime Minister's judgment of our security services. What they do defends our freedom, protects our society and saves our lives. However, whenever I have sat in this House over the past 10 years considering the numerous Bills presented to us, I have always kept in the back of my mind a statement by my old mentor Lord Callaghan; I think that I have repeated it to the House before. After receiving a briefing from members of the security services and they had left the room, he turned to me and said, "Always listen to what they say, but never abandon your own political judgment". I think that that is Parliament's duty when we deal with these matters.
	We in this House have long supported the use of intercept evidence and welcome this move. The task now is to get the balance right between the effective use of such intercept evidence and the protection of capabilities in the field. One concern about the Statement is that there are so many checks, balances and conditions that it is almost an open invitation to those who do not want to see this move implemented to find reasons not to implement it. It will take some strength on the part of Ministers to ensure that this is not in fact one step forward and two steps back. Is the Minister satisfied that the right balance will be struck between the use of these new capabilities and excessive claims by the security authorities that this will damage the agencies? We must make sure that that happens. Our argument has always been that this move will strengthen our ability to secure terrorist and organised-crime convictions. That will not happen if it is too easy to make such objections.
	Is the Minister confident that the move will not undermine interagency co-operation? It is true that agencies have not in the past co-operated with each other. They should not use this relaxation of the rules on intercept as an excuse for not communicating with each other. I repeat the question from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde: when can we expect legislation on this? I also underline his concerns about the justification for pursuing 42-day detention.
	The Chilcot team has done a good job of work. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out, there is now a wide concern that goes beyond just intercepts and concerns the nature of our society and where it is going. The Bill needed to implement this change will, I think, be the ninth one in 10 years to address various aspects of security. There is growing public concern at the growth of what has been termed the surveillance society.
	I therefore wonder whether the Chilcot team, which has proved so admirable, could not be given a further task: to have a full overview and review of the legislation introduced over the past 10 years and to see what has worked and what has not. Those who have studied these matters have found whole sections of legislation which was rushed through the House in days or hours that have never been implemented. Other provisions referred to in this House have been used with unforeseen circumstances. We must ensure that security legislation is not an ever-incoming tide. We must continually use the considerable strength and wisdom of this House to ensure that we strike the right balance between our civil liberties and our security needs.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome and have, indeed, already paid tribute to this cross-party working. I am also very happy to join in the tributes to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I always consult him because I find it more valuable to do so than not. He and I watched my right honourable friend the Prime Minister give the Statement in another place and I saw what I thought was a flicker of a smile cross his face as he listened. If he comments on the Statement today, I hope his comments will be largely supportive because the Statement picks up the issues he raised.
	We have to be clear that no one on the committee is suggesting that this is a magic silver bullet that will dramatically change the way things are. We have a very good and high success rate for convictions in trials in this country. I have no estimates from the Crown Prosecution Service, but the Metropolitan Police estimates that its success rate could increase from 88 per cent to 92 per cent if it could use intercept. That 4 per cent is worth having, but worth having only within the conditions laid down in the report. I think that those bodies would also accept that there could be fewer aborted trials, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
	The issue of the link with Australia as a common law country has been raised today in both your Lordships' House and another place. Noble Lords who have read the report will have seen an extensive section on comparisons with different countries, France, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia being but four. I recommend that noble Lords who have not had a chance to read that section do so, for the committee clearly found the comparison extremely valuable. However, the committee was also keen to point out the differences between the different regimes, not least the different systems. For example, Australia, as I indicated, has a common law system; the other countries I mentioned do not. But there are distinctive differences between the British system and the systems in those countries. Although Australia is a common law country, it does not have the European Convention on Human Rights. That is a distinct difference. We have the adversarial legal system which I have described. We also have strong and good co-operation with international partners. I do not underestimate the importance of that in thinking through how we should use this. As has already been indicated, we also have a very high level of co-operation between the police and the security services. So although the committee was very clear that comparisons are valuable and useful, it was also clear that no direct comparator could be translated across. We therefore need to devise our own solution.
	I do not have detailed timings to give noble Lords. My plan, of course, is to keep the House informed—not least because, as noble Lords will see when reading the report, there is a lot of detailed work to be done. I do not think that the nine conditions will be a hindrance, but each requires substantial work. I hope the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be reassured that the combination of an implementation team drawn from across government and from the agencies with the newly convened cross-party group led by Sir John Chilcot, with all the experience that it already has, will enable us to make sure that the eventual proposals are robust and, vitally, as I am sure the House will agree, that we do not compromise our national security ability in anything we do while recognising that there is clearly a possibility of taking this forward in a particular way.
	I do not want to spend a lot of time—I could, believe me—discussing the 42-day issue. Like noble Lords, I have had the benefit of talking to a number of people in your Lordships' House and in another place and beyond about the issues that I know are of concern. In all the conversations I have had there has been a real clarity of understanding that we are reaching the point where we may need to look in exceptional circumstances at the possibility of someone being held for longer than 28 days. Two issues which noble Lords will be aware of come to mind. The first is the ability of those who wish to create havoc and terror in our country to use technology in an increasingly clever way, and the requirements therefore to be able to use the encryption codes and so on that are on our services.
	The second is that this often has an international dimension, and that requires us to think, talk and discuss with forces all over the world, some of which may be very far flung and do not have the communication abilities that we do. Those issues have implications in terms of whether 28 days will be sufficient. I have always believed it is the job of government to think ahead, to consider and to plan. That is exactly what we are trying to do within the counter-terror Bill that will come before your Lordships' House. It is absolutely critical, having accepted that principle, which I believe people do, to make sure that the safeguards are built in. In the context of the counter-terror Bill, those safeguards are political judgment, parliamentary oversight and judicial oversight combined. Noble Lords may have views on how those work, but they are three important and distinct elements.
	Finally, I looked up the Wilson Doctrine. The last statement on the Wilson Doctrine was on 30 March 2006. I want to read out the paragraph that answers the questions I have been asked about it:
	"In answer to questions in the House of Commons on 17 November 1966, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Harold Wilson MP, said that he had given instructions that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament and that if there were a development which required a change of policy he would at such a moment as was compatible with the security of the country make a statement in the House about it. This approach, known as the Wilson Doctrine, has been maintained under successive administrations".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/3/06; col. 95-96WS.]
	And it does apply to your Lordships' House.

Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I thank the Leader of House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement and add my warmest congratulations to the Privy Council team on producing an excellent report. I do not think I have ever read a clearer or fairer account of the benefits and risks—because there are risks—involved in introducing intercept evidence into court. I greatly welcome their conclusions.
	Does the noble Baroness agree that if the Government put the preferred legal model called PII Plus on a statutory basis and agree to give the undertaking which the report recommends in paragraph 213, they will go a long way—I hope the whole way—towards removing the concerns which have been felt by GCHQ and the other agencies and also by the service providers?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the different legal models are discussed on page 44 of the report. As the noble and learned Lord will know far better than I, there are several possibilities. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith when he was Attorney-General also looked at the PII Plus model. This is the one that the noble and learned Lord thinks would be of greatest interest, so I hope noble Lords will study it with great care. As he says, we will be coming forward with proposals on that.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for the Statement and her words. Does she accept that the group has tried—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, will make his contribution in a minute—to open a door for the Government using a great deal of work done previously by many people, including many Members of this House? She paid a just tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Lloyd of Berwick.
	Does the noble Baroness accept a point that has not really come out yet in these exchanges? As she said, further important work needs to be done on procedures, safeguards and cost. We hope that we have put forward in the report not only a legally robust procedure, which is set out in some detail, but also a way in which, if the Government accept our suggestion, even if we were wrong and there were to be an adverse judgment somewhere along the way, the result would not be the loss of security. It might be the loss of a particular prosecution, but it would not in any circumstances be the spilling out into the open of the precious information about the capabilities and techniques at our disposal which everyone in this House knows have to be kept secure. I am not sure how far the noble Baroness would follow me in my personal view, which is not the opinion in the report, but this issue has caused the whole government apparatus of counter-terrorism to creak rather badly. Whenever they come forward with ideas for new powers or new procedures, they have to face the argument, which they have not been able to answer, that they are barring themselves from using evidence which could be crucial. Therefore, there is a wider context beyond the scope of the report which I hope that the Government will find useful.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his work on the committee. It is valued extremely highly by my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. I noticed the noble Lord shaking his head vigorously at the idea expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, of extending the Chilcot committee's remit. I do not feel the need to answer the point as the noble Lord has done it rather well for me.
	I accept much of what the noble Lord said in the first half of his comments. As he would expect, however, I am not sure that I would agree that the apparatus creaks rather badly. I think that there is a perception that this could make a difference. What is very measured in the report is the real understanding that the difference will not make a substantial change in the ability to bring people to justice. In fact, we have an extraordinarily good track record. The question is whether it could make the difference in particular cases and lead to fewer aborted trials and more solid convictions. That is the essence of what we need to look at. It is important to look at it in that light, but not to feel in any way that we have failed to achieve what we need to achieve because this facility has not been available to us. That is where I would not agree with the noble Lord's terminology of creaking machinery.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Joint Committee on Human Rights will greatly welcome these proposals. Together with the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, and in other work by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, which has already been mentioned, all of us have been pressing for proposals of this kind. Is the noble Baroness aware that when the Joint Committee took evidence on this, we went to Madrid, to Paris and to Canada? What impressed us greatly was that if you look at the common law world and think of the United States, which has a Bill of Rights, and you think of Canada, which has a Charter of Rights—those countries which need to balance liberty and security—they were not subject to the same exclusionary rule as we have. In Europe, only Ireland, in the common law world, has the same exclusion. Is the Minister aware of that and how isolated we have been, and therefore how important it is now that we are able to join forces with, for example, Spain, which has more serious terrorism than any other country? Finally, the Minister will be aware that Sir John Chilcot has been involved in this subject for as long as any of us. He was involved in the first prevention of terrorism Bill in 1974. I cannot think of a better person to do further work in this area. In my view, he is one of the great public servants of my time.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will agree with the noble Lord in his praise of Sir John Chilcot. The quality of this report and the work that has been done clearly demonstrates that this cross-party Privy Council approach has worked extremely well with what we wish it to achieve. I pay tribute to all those involved. It is interesting when one looks at the comparisons within the document. The noble Lord talked of going to Madrid, Paris and Canada—indeed, Spain, France, Canada, Australia, the United States and the Netherlands are examples within the document. I take nothing away from the comparison between the ECHR and the Bill of Rights and the ability to make these things work together.
	However, I would point to the unique nature of the particular criteria that I spelt out for what makes this country different: our collaboration externally with other nations, our adversarial system and so on. When one adds all these up, one sees that we have to have a home-grown solution. I am not sure that we felt isolated. As I have indicated, the quality and quantity of the work we have done in bringing people to trial and to justice has been extremely high. The question was whether we could do even better. In the eyes of the Metropolitan Police, it was the difference between 88 per cent and 92 per cent. That has to be balanced very carefully against the risks which noble Lords have indicated. I also note that Andrew Dismore, who chairs the committee, was keen to welcome this earlier today in another place.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Statement says that it is not possible for the current Counter-Terrorism Bill to include the recommendation of this committee. In that event, would it not be possible to withdraw the Counter-Terrorism Bill and reintroduce it in the new Session? Alternatively, can the Counter-Terrorism Bill be extended from now until the new Session?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Counter-Terrorism Bill contains different aspects of policy, some that my noble friend may agree with and some he might find slightly more interesting. It would not be appropriate to consider the withdrawal of the Bill, particularly as those involved in the work that will follow will recognise very clearly that there is a lot to do. I do not know what the timescales are. I know my right honourable friend will be keen to keep both Houses of Parliament informed on that. As yet, I do not know how long it will take. There is work to do to try to evaluate that. I would imagine that if we asked any member of the Chilcot committee—we are fortunate to have in our presence today at least two of them—they would say that this work could take some time. That does not mean—and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, expressed concerned about it—that we should drag our feet, or indeed take too long. Certainly, it will take some time and I think to hold up a Bill which had very important measures in it would not be right.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I have one question and one slight squeak of surprise. If the security services have the right of saying no to a piece of information being released, surely it should not be them who have the absolute veto. Surely it should be a judge. If they just say no and that they do not like it, none could come forward. That is my question. My squeak of surprise is that I am very surprised that the Statement says that no control orders would have been found unnecessary as a result of this. Will the noble Baroness elaborate on that a little bit? We were all hoping—those of us on the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights—that the use of intercept evidence would reduce the need for control orders.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, on the first point that the noble Earl has raised, the tests are very clear. In fact, the first tests described within the document is that the intercepting agency shall decide whether a prosecution involving their intercept materiel shall proceed and it shall not be disclosed beyond the people who have been described—the cleared judges, prosecutors and special defence advocates—except in the form agreed. These are all very important safeguards to make sure that the evidence that is being used does not jeopardise the work of the agencies.
	I appreciate the noble Earl understands that, but somebody has to make that judgment. The proposals put forward in the committee were that it would be the agencies themselves. If the work is done correctly and we get this right, there will be, I believe, a clear consensus not only within your Lordships' House and beyond, but across the agencies and the services that this is an appropriate thing to do and they will wish to do it where it is appropriate. We have to be clear who has to take that judgment and I think the work of the committee is to suggest that that judgment should rest with them.
	In terms of the control orders, it is very important that we do not look at this piece of work and the potential as being the answer to a set of issues that we have elsewhere. The committee was clear to say that. One cannot assume that control orders would be any different as a consequence. It may be that in the future other things will happen as a consequence of using the evidence; things that would not happen now. We cannot prejudge that and at the present time it would not have had any impact.

Lord Dear: My Lords, in thanking the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, I, too, pay tribute to Sir John Chilcot whom I count not only as a friend but he is also an ex-colleague. I have yet to read the report but, from the Statement, it sounds like a very thorough-going and welcome report that will exercise both Houses of Parliament for some time.
	The one point I should like to make is really a point of practical detail. It concerns the four points which have been identified already and the nine conditions. I am sure that we all agree in principle that the intercepting agencies should retain the ability to control their material, and that disclosure of material cannot be required against their wishes. I wish to flag up one practical point that follows on from that. The fourth point is to ensure that agencies cannot be required to transcribe or make notes of material beyond a standard of detail they deem necessary. Many large criminal cases not specifically concerned with security have foundered in the past on that point, when a determined defence team has insisted on transcription of masses of material. One could well imagine that in the sort of cases we are considering today, there could be a requirement to transcribe not only hours' and days' worth of material, but even weeks' and years' worth. Doing so will bog down a prosecution to the point where it may not even run the case at all.
	I ask the Leader of the House if she would take these remarks back to the team considering the matter. It will be a very finely balanced judgment, of course, but, in practical terms, it is well worth noting.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, with his wealth of experience, for that contribution. It is precisely because the implications of these points need to be looked at in great detail that we have set up the team that will take this forward.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on taking a decision which is wholly in line with countries of similar legal antecedents to our own and will iron out some very curious anomalies in relation to what areas of intercept evidence were admissible and which were not. However, I ask the Minister to have Her Majesty's Government consider carefully in relation to those cases where the veto of the intelligence agencies is not used—I accept that it is for them to decide—that when the matter eventually comes to trial, a longstop discretionary jurisdiction should be vested in the trial judge who will invariably be a judge of the High Court so that ultimately, the ends of justice are seen to be served by an authority that is totally non-partisan.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the legal framework around which this will be set is an important aspect of the discussions that need to take place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, talked about PII Plus, the code for a particular way of looking at this. It is very important to get the legal framework right, as noble Lords are saying.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I welcome the report and congratulate Sir John Chilcot and his committee on doing such a thorough, scrupulous and meticulously detailed job. As somebody who gave evidence to the committee, I know that its members were scrupulously fair, courteous and extremely detailed in carrying out their responsibilities.
	Does my noble friend not agree with me that the Chilcot committee is saying that in principle it would be a very good thing if intercept could be introduced in evidence in support? In this House we have always agreed about that—there is no question of there being a question of principle. I hope that my noble friend will agree with me that the committee has made it clear that there are some very real and serious hurdles to be cleared to meet the conditions which it has laid out. Of the nine requirements which it has laid out on page 49 of the report, six are classified in another part of the report as,
	"requirements for intercept as evidence to be operationally workable".
	That is the key question. Unless these hurdles can be cleared—and one hopes that the committee that will now take forward the work will be able to solve some of these problems—the Government have been very clear that they will not proceed if there is any question of harming the efficiency of the agencies or endangering the security of the country.
	Can the Minister add anything about the intercept modernisation programme, which was mentioned at the end of the Statement? If there is anything that could be added, that would be welcome to the House.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, who I know has taken a keen interest in the deliberations of, and gave evidence to, the Chilcot committee. She was right to add a strong note of caution: that, while the principle that the report establishes could be a useful way forward, it should be recognised that significant and serious hurdles are to be overcome. It may not be possible to overcome them, about which the report is clear, as I hope noble Lords will have felt from the tone of the Statement. The Government will look to do so, but we cannot guarantee that we will. As my noble friend said, it is important that what we are seeking to achieve is operationally workable.
	The noble Baroness asked about the modernisation programme. It is partly to do with a magical thing called internet protocols, which are about the new ways in which people communicate. Noble Lords will be aware of the whole of the internet, from Facebook onwards, but telephone conversations also are increasingly conducted over the internet. As with any other technological advance, it is important that we look at the implications for the services. The modernisation programme is being undertaken in part at least to try to anticipate the way in which those methods of communication could be used in the future.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the Minister said that a great deal of work will be required on the nine conditions. Does she agree that it is more important that it should be done properly than it should be done quickly?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend for his work on the Chilcot committee and agree with him completely. That is why it is important to achieve an information timescale that sees the work go forward, but ensures that it is done thoroughly and properly, so that our conclusions are correct. In addition, as the Statement and the report said, we should ensure also that, in finding and trying out a solution we discover that there are reasons why it ceases to be effective, we have in place the mechanisms to be able to deal with it promptly.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Schedule 2 [Breach, revocation or amendment of youth rehabilitation orders]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 32:
	Schedule 2, page 170, line 17, leave out from "ways" to end of line 18

Lord Kingsland: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39. Under current provisions, courts can choose to leave a youth rehabilitation order unamended after a breach. For instance, a young person on a standard six-month supervision order might have kept more than 90 per cent of his or her appointments but still qualify for breach action. Breach proceedings may often be brought where the young person's compliance and motivation to co-operate with the intervention are very high, particularly given the chaotic lifestyles associated with many young people who come to the attention of the youth justice system. Breaches can occur easily for children with unstable home lives. Currently the courts tend to respond to technical breaches with warnings or encouragement.
	The provisions in the Bill would preclude such an approach and would require that a court must, when it is satisfied that a breach has occurred, impose a fine or amend the terms of a youth rehabilitation order, even if the young person has responded well and the youth offending team and the court consider that the order should be allowed to continue in its present form. Why is the Bill reducing the discretion of the court? Here is yet another example of the Bill doing that. National standards require breach proceedings to be initiated relatively early on, so courts will confront a wide range of different levels of non-compliance. They should have flexibility in how they respond to them.
	We share the concern of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice that the provision might reduce the potential for compliance with the order if the young person feels unfairly or harshly treated. In that event, the imposition of such a punishment might be counterproductive, leading potentially to further proceedings for breach or the subsequent revocation of the order, the potential for increased offending associated with non-compliance of the order and, in some cases, a custodial sentence. We are concerned, in other words, that the Government's emphasis on robust enforcement for breach, because of their view about the need to maintain confidence in community sentences, might accelerate offenders into custody despite original offences not being serious enough to warrant it.
	Our amendment would ensure that the courts retain the discretion that they currently enjoy to deal with the wide range of breaches that come before them in the most appropriate fashion in all the circumstances. In particular, the power of the court to issue a warning would provide some form of encouragement to the young person without the imposition of a further punishment. I beg to move.

Lord Ramsbotham: I warmly support this amendment, but for a slightly lateral reason. One theme of yesterday's debates was about putting the needs of the child first. I regard this amendment, allowing discretion to the courts, very much to be allowing the interests of the child to be put first by the sentencer at the time of sentencing.

The Earl of Onslow: Again, I must agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, says. Why do this Government not trust professionals to get on with their job? If you appoint somebody to be a magistrate or a judge, you assume that they are capable of either magistrating or judging. You do not want to hold their hand the whole time and tell them exactly what to do, because invariably circumstances will arise when it is exactly the wrong thing to do. You should just allow them to use their judgment, which is what you pay them for.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: I take the same line entirely. I put the obverse argument by asking this question: what earthly gain do you make by circumscribing the discretion of a learned judge or bench of magistrates in this situation?

Baroness Butler-Sloss: It will not surprise the Minister that I also, for the reasons that have been given, support this amendment.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: There has been unanimity of view until now, when it is my turn to speak. This has been a short but interesting debate. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked why we did not trust the professionals. I am a great admirer and rereader of the text of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, for the Dimbleby lecture five or six years ago, which was on the theme of putting our trust in professionals and of the dangers of not doing that. As a general proposition, I very much agree with it. Equally, there is always a balance to be drawn between the role of Parliament and government in setting a framework and what then has to happen at local level. We will argue, throughout the Bill, I suspect, about whether we get the balance right.
	As a general comment rather than specific to this debate, my experience as a Minister is that, collectively, parliamentarians are concerned about too much central diktat, but then spend most of their efforts putting pressure on the Government to do something. It is difficult to get the balance right. Indeed, some of the amendments tabled by noble Lords who argue for discretion in this area are very precise in another area.
	On the specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, there is a safeguarding in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2, which states:
	"If the responsible officer is of the opinion that the offender has failed without reasonable excuse".
	Together with the guidelines that will be established, that gives sufficient discretion for the responsible officer to make a common-sense judgment in this area.
	The court is then given discretion in the ways that it can deal with the breach. It has to deal with it, but there are various options in paragraph, 6 and likewise in paragraph 8 in relation to the Crown Court. I would argue that we have established the right balance.
	The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, argued that, under the current community sentencing arrangements, courts can choose not to do anything in response to a breach that is brought before them. That is a fair point to make. But we believe that under the new framework that we are debating, doing nothing, or at least doing nothing without reviewing the order, should not be an option. As I said, the specified actions for courts to take provide for a range of options for the court when dealing with a breach while taking into account how the young offender has complied with the existing order.
	The new youth rehabilitation order has many different requirements. It is different from the current framework, which is sentence-driven. In the current circumstances it may well be right for a court to allow a young person to continue with a supervision order or an action plan order where this has been breached because, in many cases, the sentence does not have the potential to contain multifaceted requirements such as can be attached to the youth rehabilitation order.
	In the Government's view, where a youth rehabilitation order is breached, the requirements need to be reviewed and revised where necessary and appropriate. We believe that it should be reviewed to ascertain whether the requirements originally attached were best suited to the young person. Requirements may need to be substituted or amended. Indeed, the court can take no action under the third power that has been set out in paragraph 6(2)(c), and paragraph 8(2)(c). Paragraph 6(2)(c) states that the court can deal with the offender,
	"in any way in which the court could have dealt with the offender for that offence".
	It means that the court could make a youth rehabilitation order less onerous by taking away a requirement that is not appropriate.
	I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Some young people will find the requirements attached to the youth rehabilitation order difficult to comply with. When it is breached, it is right for the court to consider properly whether the original requirements were appropriate and whether they should continue. The youth rehabilitation order will be effective only if it is properly tailored to the needs of the individual. A breach of the YRO could be a clear indication that this aspiration has not been fulfilled. We would not want to perpetuate requirements that, in practice, are not working or suitable. The courts should be able to review and revise a youth rehabilitation order where it is breached. Overriding that is the whole construct of youth rehabilitation orders as part of a programme designed to ensure that custody is truly a last resort. It is about a robust community sentencing framework. We have to make it clear that breaches cannot be tolerated. There are sufficient safeguards in the Bill, which is why I hope the House will accept the provisions as they are currently enunciated.

The Earl of Listowel: Does the Minister agree that, generally speaking, building on the professional judgment of those on the front line, if one can, is preferable to being prescriptive? What steps has he taken to build on the professional capacity of those on the front line—through, for instance, continuing professional development and improved advice—in that sort of way, rather than taking this step of legislating?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I very much agree with the noble Earl. We want to build on the skills and expertise of people on the front line, whether they are responsible officers, people who work with young people, or the judiciary. Clearly, in the context of this debate, the responsible officers play an absolutely critical role and are given considerable discretion. We also think it right that Parliament should set an appropriate framework where it is clear that breaches without reasonable excuse should be dealt with decisively, but that the judiciary and magistrates should have sufficient discretion, which we believe is contained in the Bill, to make an appropriate decision.

Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply, and to all noble Lords who spoke in this short and very revealing debate. These amendments have not only occurred to the Opposition. Rather, their underlying views are extremely powerfully advocated by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice. I am a little unclear, given the Minister's response, about exactly what motivation lies behind the Government's approach. On the one hand, the Minister has said that the situation has now changed because we have Clause 1 of the Bill and this generic youth rehabilitation order, which takes a new approach to the youth justice system. Consequently, it is necessary to review the scope of the courts' discretion in dealing with breaches. On the other hand, there have a number of occasions when Ministers, in the context of the Bill generally and in the context of this clause in particular, have said that one of the reasons for it is the need to maintain confidence in community sentences. That is an entirely different point. I should like to hear the Minister's response to that, if he cares to get on his feet again.
	The Minister drew my attention to a number of other provisions in the Bill, suggesting that in fact the change is rather marginal. Is he saying that what I am seeking, and what the Standing Committee for Youth Justice is seeking, is in fact in the Bill anyway if you read all the measures in conjunction? If that is so, why do the Government not simply accept our amendments or say that our amendments are actually what the Bill says?
	My concern is that of course there will be situations when a breach comes before a magistrate or a judge and that magistrate or judge will say, "Actually, the original cocktail of measures under the youth rehabilitation order is not suitable and we will have to refine them". Equally, he may take a completely different view. He may take the view that the original range of dispositions under the order were exactly right and the reasons why the young man or woman had not been able to comply 100 per cent were either out of their control or understandable in their social circumstances. It is that second thing that the judge can no longer do. He is the only person who will have a real grasp of what the situation on the ground is like; so why on earth remove that discretion from him? I do not know whether the Minister wants to respond.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am happy to respond to the noble Lord. I thought I was being consistent and that my remarks dealt with both facets. It is certainly so that my colleagues in another place emphasised the issue of public interest and confidence in what we are seeking to do here. That is because we have made a great deal of progress in our discussions in the past two days about the importance of developing community sentences to ensure that custody is the last option. Those community sentences should be effective and should aid the prevention of reoffending. There is little that I have seen that we disagree about. But we also believe that in terms of public confidence we have to show that community sentences are not a soft option. I very much endorse the fact that they are not a soft option. Having now had some experience of joining in with community sentences, I am satisfied that they are not a soft option. Part of building public confidence is to get over that we cannot tolerate breaches, because we have to make sure that community sentencing is a vigorous option.
	As for the discretion of the judiciary, I also sought to point out, as noble Lords can see on pages 170 and 172 of the Bill, that we want the magistrates' court to deal with a breach. As set out in paragraph 6(2)(b), one of the ways in which it can deal with a breach is to amend the terms of the youth rehabilitation order. It can make additions or substitutions. In that way, it can deal with the very point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.

The Earl of Onslow: If I may be so bold as to say so, white man speak with forked tongue. The noble Lord is beginning to give me the impression that actually he agrees with my noble friend Lord Kingsland that when some young man or young woman does something silly that they cannot help and they breach their order, it should not be a breaking point. He is then saying, "We have got to show the public", so he is trying to give over two messages. That is my understanding; I may be wrong. If he is saying that we do not have to worry and the discretionary powers are there, then good, but he could have said that right at the beginning.

Lord Elystan-Morgan: I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of the Minister in any way. On the contrary, I am sure that he is totally genuine on this matter. Yet there is a lack of logicality in what he says, in my respectful submission.
	On the one hand, the reporting officer has a massive discretion. He is not a judicial figure; he is an administrative figure, a person obviously near to the miscreant and able to come to a proper conclusion. He has that discretion, and it is right that he should have it, but the court is not given that discretion. It is perfectly true that the court is not driven to any specific punishment or anything of that order. Indeed, I can understand the motivation for saying that it must be brought before the court, because the court will then review. The main question is this: what benefit will that appearance before the court have for the miscreant himself?
	The point has been amply made by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that a great deal of goodwill will sometimes be won by the fact that the court—normally the magistrate—will say that it is taking no action but is looking closely at the situation. The person will know what will happen if he appears before it again. It will have almost the effect of a suspended sentence. It is missing that opportunity that is the illogicality and weakness of the Government's position.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not like having the noble Lord against me, but I do not believe that the Government are being illogical. First, he is right about the discretion to be given to the responsible officer. For all the reasons that have been suggested in the debate, that is right. As long as it is done within national standards, there is consistency and we can be assured that all responsible officers will do the right thing, there is a need for discretion. If there is a breach, it is inconsequential and there is good reason for it, no further action need be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, looks rather quizzical: there is a need for "reasonable excuse".
	When it comes to the general proposition of whether the new structure will work or whether people are convinced that it will, it is sensible to be able to make it clear that breaches will not be tolerated. The point then is that that is why the court is required to take action. Yet a great deal of discretion is given to the court to decide what action is taken. I see that I am not having much luck here, but it is an entirely consistent approach.

Lord Kingsland: I asked the noble Lord whether the situation had changed as a result of your clause, in the context of the other clauses to which he had rightly drawn the attention of the Committee. The noble Lord said that the situation had changed. If so, my amendment retains its force. I can modestly say that it has received considerable support in the Committee. We have probably reached the stage where—

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, of course the situation has changed. The noble Lord's amendment has force; it is just wrong.

Lord Kingsland: That is a bold thing for the Minister to say. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that this is one of our amendments that will be coming back on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 not moved.]

The Earl of Onslow: moved Amendment No. 35:
	Schedule 2, page 170, line 35, at end insert ", the age of the offender and the intellectual and emotional maturity of the offender"

The Earl of Onslow: This amendment concerns sentencing. Are we listening on the government Front Bench?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We are ever alert.

The Earl of Onslow: Good. The amendment concerns sentencing. Those of us on the Joint Committee on Human Rights felt that the interests of the child in the government clause was being subordinated against what has been agreed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child in, I think, Article 3.
	Our recommendation says:
	"We recognise that the obligation in the CRC is to ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all decisions affecting children, not the sole primary consideration. In our view, however, the effect of clause 9 of the Bill is to subordinate the best interests of the child to the status of a secondary consideration below the primary consideration of crime prevention".
	I read that out for the simple reason that it has been put with much greater clarity than I could put it. It was unanimously agreed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We keep on coming back to the fact that the interests of the child are primary. Not only is it right that that should be so, but, if we have regard to the interests of the child, get them to go straight and turn them away from their ungodly ways, that will be in the interests of the community as a whole. There is no clash with what we want to do or with crime prevention or rehabilitation or anything like that. Our treaty duty is to do that, and it should be in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Judd: I support the amendment very positively. The noble Earl has put the argument very well, as indeed did the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As we argued yesterday—it is impossible not to repeat some of the ground in the context of this amendment—it is wrong and misleading to suggest that somehow there has to be a balance between the interests of the child and the interests of the community.
	It is upsetting when it is suggested directly or implicitly that those of us who argue the position that I am about to argue are somehow soft on the need to protect society. It is quite the reverse. We are very hard on asking people to stop being stupid by creating situations in which the child is more likely to become criminalised and to be excluded, with all the consequent costs and negative outcomes to society in the future. Seeing the interests of the child as crucial is not only necessary because we have a responsibility for children and we care in value terms about children, it is essential to protect society in the future from the cost of reoffending and from the damage of reoffending.
	Yesterday in our very interesting deliberations, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred to one of the children involved in the horrible murder of James Bulger and how he had a mental age of four. If we are really taking the interests of the child seriously, if we really are committed to rehabilitation, not only for the person concerned and not simply on principle but because—I say it again—this is a way of protecting society, we must treat each child as an individual with their own position, their own needs and their own experiences. On the evidence of how things have been done in the past, I do not believe that that happens. That may happen on occasion, but it is probably more on occasion than as a general rule.
	Therefore, it seems to me that this is an essential amendment. I applaud those who have tabled it. I hope that my noble friend will respond sympathetically. Either we care about the protection of society or we do not; either we see children as children, as I said yesterday, whatever their situation, or we do not. If we see them as children, we must see them as individuals in need of an individual approach, if we are to get things right.

Baroness Stern: In supporting the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—I am also a colleague of his on the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I want to continue the discussion that we have been having this afternoon about discretion. How much discretion should the courts have, and would it be desirable to give them some discretion back?
	Amendments Nos. 35 and 40 relate to sentencing by magistrates and Crown Courts and the limitations on their discretion. The JCHR was concerned that the youth rehabilitation order framework might lead to a disproportionate use of custody for children and young people. The Bill requires sentencing to be proportionate to the offence—we are coming to that—but our international human rights obligations require courts' actions to be proportionate to the child's age and emotional and intellectual maturity.
	The committee's view was that the consequences of breach, as set out in the Bill, could lead quickly to custody, even when it could not have been considered for the original offence. The committee wrote to the Government asking why there could not be more judicial discretion, and they said—I imagine that the Minister will tell us this in a few moments—that sentencers may wish to use their discretion but they cannot permit this because the Government want enforcement to be robust. That word has obviously found its way into the Minister's brief. The Government's reply makes it clear that the need for robustness overrides the need to do the right thing for the child and the community.
	Those of us who follow the system sometimes see odd decisions reported and ask ourselves, "How could that happen? What were the magistrates thinking?". I mentioned two cases yesterday. Two children were sent to custody for breach, and one child killed himself. How did a vulnerable child find himself in prison for not turning up for his appointments? Presumably the answer is robustness. The Prison Reform Trust has done an excellent project, supported, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, about the large number of people in prison with learning difficulties, including children under 18. They are highly vulnerable. The magistrates or Crown Court must have thought, "This is a very sad situation we are in". Presumably, it was robustness that meant that these people ended up in custody.
	Obviously, robustness is a concept with some merit, but I am not sure how appropriate it is for children with severe learning difficulties, for a child who may be 14 but looks about 10 or the sort of people we see in institutions who make us ask, "How on earth did they get here?". Our amendment suggests that the courts must look at the child before them, get reports and use their judgment and humanity. The Government make a big mistake with their idea of robustness and the link to public confidence. The public are not interested in that sort of complexity; they are interested in an effective outcome. They are interested in seeing a young person stop doing whatever it is they have been doing that is causing misery and mayhem. In my view, the key is not robustness of enforcement but solving the problem that the child presents. It might need special placement in a school, drug treatment or more social workers' time, but I doubt that it needs robustness.
	The robustness that the Minister has been suggesting we should adopt, not only today but yesterday, leads to outcomes that cost a lot of money and do not deliver what the Government want to see, which is confidence and a system of justice that works. I wholeheartedly support the noble Earl's amendment.

Lord Judd: On the point about robustness I feel strongly in sympathy with the noble Baroness. Does she agree that it negates the purpose of alternatives to prison? The purpose of sentencing in a social context outside prison is to tackle the issue of rebuilding the life of the person concerned without disrupting it still further. Resorting to the word "robust" does not match up to the philosophy of having these sentences at all.

Baroness Stern: As ever, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: Having listened to the debate and read the amendments, I cannot think of a single reason why the Minister could possibly not accept the amendment. It is clear and limited. We have heard it said in answer to my noble friend Lord Listowel that magistrates and judges are subjected to a lot of training as time goes on. We know that probably even more resources could be spent—that is important too—so that they are up to date with some of the concerns of offenders who look one age but are emotionally another age.
	Here we have a perfectly straightforward case. The most effective way to stop reoffending and to do the right thing for the child, the community and the family seems about as clear as it could be in what we have already heard. Unless we are going to hear from the Minister that everything that we are asking for is in the Bill—I cannot see it—I hope that we are all wasting our time because the Minister is going to accept the amendment.

Lord Ramsbotham: As we have gone through the Bill, I have mentioned a number of times the fact that we are tackling one thing in isolation when in fact we are talking about something that reflects on many other aspects of the treatment of young people in the justice system.
	Yesterday, for example, I quoted a conversation with a senior officer who, having been introduced to what a speech and language therapist could do with and for a young person, recognised that he and others had been damaging that person because they had been putting things down to bad behaviour and treating him wrongly. On reflection, it emerged that one of the problems was that these sensible words about what needed to be taken into account on behalf of the child were not there as part of what the young offender institution had to do for that person. When I took a speech and language therapist in with me and asked her to carry out an assessment of young people in custody, she came up with all sorts of important things, such as memory loss and various other aspects, which meant that the institution itself was not tackling the needs of the child.
	It is therefore entirely appropriate that the amendment be included to cover the process right from the start, when the person is being considered. Those needs should be followed right through everything done with and for the young person—whether in the community, an institution or whatever. It goes back to this vital point: if you put the interests of the child first, all the protection and the other things we talk about will follow. That is absolutely crucial.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: I also support the amendment. Part 2, which deals with sentencing and the things to which the court must have regard, includes the punishment of offenders. The amendment would not interfere with that. In no way would it diminish the protection of the public or the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, which is exactly the point that the amendment is making.
	Of course, the community must be protected. Of course, we must be certain that the press, which is powerful and militant in seeing children as wicked, rather than having needs as well as being offenders, will dislike anything that is not seen to be robust. But it is not lacking in robustness for the court to be reminded, as it should be, of the age and mental capacity of the offender. It will in no way reduce the protection of the public.

Lord Kingsland: It will not surprise the Committee to hear that we are also extremely sympathetic to the amendments tabled by my noble friend, by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern.
	The noble Lord, Lord Judd, made some particularly telling observations about allegations of softness from both the Government and the press. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, developed the notion of "robustness" in an extremely attractive way. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that these are sensible words, and I shall be interested to hear whether the Government choose to disagree with him.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We continue the theme of our debates over the two days. I do not disagree with my noble friend Lord Judd's eloquent argument about the need to treat a child as an individual. He emphasised prevention, rehabilitation and resettlement, with all of which I agree.
	I also agree with Members of the Committee who say that this should be about solving problems. I argue that the whole construct of youth rehabilitation orders is to help to solve problems, through the very nature and flexibility of those orders. I have never sought to argue that courts sentencing young offenders have a duty to have regard to their welfare. As I said yesterday, the principal aim of the youth justice system is and must be to prevent offending. If, in legislation, you essentially put it in the Bill that an exclusive focus is to be on the welfare of the child, you risk ignoring the rights of everyone else, including other children—who in many, if not most, cases, are often the victims of young offenders.
	"Robustness" and "softness" and the impact of the media are clearly important considerations in this matter. We do not legislate in isolation from the world around us. In a sense I am arguing along the same lines as I did in the previous debate. The Government are seeking a much more flexible community sentence response with YROs. At the same time, we must emphasise—public confidence is a factor here—that this is robust approach. It is intended to reduce reoffending. Where breaches are unacceptable, they will be dealt with. I do not think that that is an unreasonable description of a robust approach. I understand the sentiments behind the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, described the words as attractive. I understand that. Ensuring proportionality has to be an important part of what we seek to do.
	Paragraphs 6 and 8 of Schedule 2 require the court, when dealing with an offender in respect of a breach of a youth rehabilitation order, to take into account the extent to which the young person has complied with the order. We believe that the amendment is not necessary because the young person's age and maturity are factors that are embedded in general sentencing practice. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out, Clause 9 sets out the purposes of sentencing and the factors that the courts must take into account when sentencing. The requirement for the court to have regard to the welfare of the young person still applies when the court is considering how to deal with a young offender who has breached a youth rehabilitation order. The court has every opportunity to consider all the circumstances of the breach, including any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. In practice, the court will therefore already take into account factors such as age and emotional maturity when making any sentence decision on breach. These are important matters and factors that the court should take into account when deciding which interventions should be made and how long they should be.
	Why then should we not put that in the Bill as opposed to leaving it to the court or the Sentencing Guidelines Council? There could be a range of factors that the court will need to consider as personal mitigation, of which age and maturity are just two. Exactly which factors will depend on the circumstances of the individual. They might include the family circumstances of the offender. There are many matters that the court will have to consider, and it is often difficult to have a definitive list and to single out one or two factors that in some cases may not be as important as other considerations.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: What the Minister is arguing would be a good reason for not including in sub-paragraph (4) that,
	"the court must take into account the extent to which the offender has complied with the youth rehabilitation order".
	What could be more central to the proceedings before the court, where it has to be proved to the satisfaction of the court that the offender has failed without reasonable excuse to comply with a youth rehabilitation order, than that it should take into account the extent to which he has complied with it? If it is all right to have that in, what is wrong in principle or in practice with the addition proposed by this amendment?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not sure I follow the noble and learned Lord on that. It is clear that the court has to have discretion in relation to dealing with the breach, which is what the Bill allows it. It has to take action to deal with the breach, but it has discretion about the way that it makes the decision about what action it should take. It would be difficult simply to single out the factors contained in the amendment as being more important than any other factors. In essence, there is sufficient discretion—

Lord Judd: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. What I am about to say must be heard in the context of my very great respect for him and the level of real concern which he himself has about many of the issues we are discussing. It is a weak argument to say that, because some other factors might need to be listed, this crucial factor should not be put in the Bill. Surely it would be more convincing for those of us on this side of the Committee who are trying to support him and respond positively to his position if he were to say, "I do not find this amendment helpful because of that danger, but I will go away and think of some generic wording that will cover this and other possibilities". Off the top of my head he might suggest wording such as, "The court must take into account all the appropriate needs of the child"; or if he does not like the word "needs" because it sounds soft, "The court must take into account all the relevant factors of the individual child before deciding what to do". Just to reject what everybody can see is highly relevant because there might be some other things which are highly relevant is not really a very satisfactory position.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: I wholeheartedly endorse the comments that have been made across the Committee. It seems to me that there are two points that the Minister is not fleshing out as he might. If things need to be said in plain English, we should say them in plain English.
	First, the Minister seems to be suggesting that the age and emotional and intellectual maturity of children should be lumped together with things such as family circumstances. Everyone else seems to be arguing today that these are factors that are critical to any intervention. We know that they are factors that are critical because in health, for example, the age and emotional and intellectual maturity of children matter when they are being diagnosed. In schools, those factors are taken into account. Across a range of interventions where public policy comes up against the assessment of the child, those factors are critical. Does the Minister accept that point in principle? If he does, it could not follow that the court must take all those other factors into account. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, all those factors stand in their own right in any event.
	Secondly, in the light of the passage of this Bill and the provisions concerning youth offending, have the Government carried out any surveys to find out what the public believe should be the approach to the sentencing of children where age and emotional and intellectual maturity—as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others have pointed out—are critical factors in their offending behaviour. We know that NGOs have carried out such a survey and that SmartJustice and others have looked into public attitudes. As for the point of robustness made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, we understand the Minister's desire to have public confidence in the system but what evidence do the Government have for that?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not have any evidence to hand but I will certainly see whether I can find any and circulate it to all noble Lords.
	My response to my noble friend is that it is always tempting to take things away but the problem with that is that it gives wrong expectation. It would be wrong for me to do that. While of course I agree that age and maturity are important considerations, I am not sure that I am in any position to say that they are more important than any other factors which call to be considered by the courts. In essence, I believe that the courts at the moment have sufficient discretion, particularly if it is backed up by the kind of assessments that would have to be made by youth offending teams.

The Earl of Onslow: Is the Minister saying that the amendment is unnecessary and that we do it already? If that is the case, that is a much more satisfactory argument than trying to counter what my noble friend Lady Stern says about robustness. If it is there and courts automatically do it, which if they do not, they should, there is no need for us to get upheaved about it.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think I am saying that. We believe that the courts have sufficient discretion. We have heard from Members of the Committee that there are instances where they believe that some young people have ended up in custody where it is inappropriate. Clearly, we do not know the circumstances and it is very difficult to make a judgment on the basis of what we have heard. But that would suggest that there is an issue around the decisions which courts make, which would then suggest that that is a matter for sentencing guidelines rather than statutory provision, as suggested.

Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. That would place the noble Lord, would it not, precisely in the position outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in his previous intervention?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think that my noble friend asked me to go away and produce an amendment, so I am not sure that it does.

Lord Judd: I hope that my noble friend will forgive my making one point. I appreciate the fact that he was dealing with the sort of alternative formulation that we might seek together. I think that what he really is saying is that it would not be honest of him to say that he will go away and think about it, because he was not convinced that this condition that we have stipulated was more important than any other. But I never said, in the compromise formula that I put forward, that I was completely meeting that point. I said that it might be one of a number of factors.
	Surely there is a way of putting in the Bill a specific injunction that factors such as this will have to be taken into account. The Government do not necessarily have to refer to the words of the amendment. I just want to feel that the Government have taken the point and see that those who are doing the work in the front line and are dealing with these youngsters have some firm guidance about how they should approach it.

The Earl of Listowel: In this debate I am reminded of the startling figures of the numbers of children in custody with learning disability and learning difficulty. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has suggested, will the Minister look at this to see whether enough is being done? Clearly, from the statistics on the number of children with learning disability and learning difficulty, one has to be concerned that not enough account has been taken of the level of maturity of children entering custody.
	We have discussed "without reasonable excuse" at some length. I ask the Minister to give more detail about what the guidance is to courts on what is and is not a reasonable excuse. That would be helpful in considering this matter.

The Earl of Onslow: We have had evidence in the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the level of adults with learning difficulties in prison is far higher than it should be. Certainly, for people with mental difficulties, it is a well established fact that there are many more than there should be in prison, which is a much bigger problem. It is a very serious problem, which we should address but probably have not. I do not know whether this is of any help, but it just makes a pessimistic answer to what the noble Earl is looking for.

Lord Ramsbotham: Perhaps I may expand on that. The speech and language therapist to whom I referred produced evidence that 100 per cent of youngsters in a young offender establishment had the communication difficulties associated with 1 per cent of the population.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: This has been an extremely interesting debate. I have no doubt that we will come back to this matter on Report. I shall see what information I can find between now and then. With regard to sentencing guidelines, at which we might ask the council to look, and the advice that the YJB will give to response officers, I am happy to look at whether any more needs to be done. Incidentally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on the question of speech and language therapy. I think we have a mutual interest in that area. I am always concerned about lists. It would be very easy to take the two in the amendment and add a few more in. There are always dangers in having a list of matters which then—

Lord Judd: I am very grateful, as well as being sorry for interrupting. My wording was specifically intended to avoid lists. It was to have a generic point made which covered all these eventualities.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I would be interested to know what the noble Lord means by generic. I would like to see it. My general contention, coming back to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is that courts have sufficient discretion at the moment. Then the question arises: do they use that discretion to best effect? If there is evidence that they do not, what can be done to encourage them to use that discretion? If I can take that away—I consider it as a constructive and reasoned response to this debate—I would be very glad to do so.

Baroness Stern: Before the noble Lord sits down, and not wishing to prolong the debate much further, could tell us how he reacts to the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner? She pointed out that in all other areas where we deal with children, it is completely obvious that we consider how old they are before we decide what to do. We also make some sort of assessment of how they have developed, whether they are very young for their age, or even whether they have not developed as they should. Then we make our decisions on the basis of having that information. If we did not do that when they went to the doctor, or the hospital, or the school, we would think that something was extraordinarily wrong. Why, as soon as they get into the court and into the youth justice system, do we stop all that and see only before us the criminal? Is that desirable and does it give us a good outcome? The point the noble Baroness made was an extremely important one and I am hoping that we do not let it just fall, but that we take it more seriously.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not sure that I can really add to what I said at the beginning in terms of the relationship between the overall aim, which is to reduce offending, and the need for the welfare of the child to be taken into account. We are not going to agree on this matter. The matters that the noble Baronesses have raised are entirely those that can be considered by the responsible officer and the courts.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the extraordinary thing about this debate is that there is not an enormous amount of difference between us. What there is, is a difference of presentation. The Government are frightened of allowing this to be too public, but they actually secretly want to get on and do it. That is more or less what the noble Lord said. He said that here we have all the discretion that they should take into account, but it is tucked away at the bottom. Those of us who have been proposing this amendment are saying that it should be much more obvious that that is the case. We are nearer than it may look on the outside, and it is a pity in this instance that the Government do not have the courage of what is said slightly lower down.
	I am going to read this pretty carefully and take very much what the noble Earl—the noble Lord; I am sorry, I am giving you a bunk-up in the peerage, which is very bad for his image. I will take away what he has said, which I think is helpful, and see if we need to come back to it on Report. I think we probably will do. Certainly what he said is more helpful than one sometimes gets from Ministers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: moved Amendment No. 36:
	Schedule 2, page 171, line 26, leave out sub-paragraphs (12) to (16)

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I rise with some trepidation because what I have to say on these amendments follows on directly from what has already been said, with which I entirely concur. If I am seen to be replicating what everyone else has said, I apologise, because I am speaking to two separate amendments which should possibly have been grouped together. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would stay for a moment, because I shall start by giving him, as well as the Government, a possible "out".
	The amendment specifically refers to the CRC's requirement that,
	"children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence".
	That excerpt may or may not be helpful. I will also speak to the amendments in my name which refer again to the use of ISSPs or, more particularly, to their breach, when the original offence was not so serious as to warrant it and even more because the breach is then likely to end in custody—an even more inappropriate disposal.
	The Bill does not include the relevance of the child's age and emotional and intellectual maturity, which may be extremely important, given what we know about the profiles of children who end up going through the court system. Given the preponderance of children who have been abused, who have been in care and who have mental health difficulties and learning difficulties or, for instance, autistic spectrum disorders, this is a very important requirement to include in the Bill. Instead, the Bill's proposals cause us real concern. They emphasise the importance of breach over all else, regardless of the seriousness or otherwise of the original offence.
	I hear the Government's argument that where an order is breached, rigorous enforcement action is essential. I also heard the Minister say that in order to maintain confidence in community sentences, we cannot tolerate breaches. I will have quite a lot to say about community sentences and my involvement in them later on, but for the moment I should just like to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, that not only is confidence essential—indeed, it is the pillar of the whole process—but rigorous enforcement, of itself, is not nearly so important as successful outcomes, particularly by reducing reoffending. That is what the public want above all else and there is lots of evidence to show this. We must remember the damage that custody can do unless it is indeed used as a last resort.
	In fact, with many children, especially those with the sort of problems I have just referred to, breaching reflects even more the need better to match orders to the situation of the offender. Last year, I met a child of about 13, a tiny boy, who was in an STC for breach. It was absolutely clear that he would continue with the breach when he got out because he was determined to skip school and do anything in his power to be with his sick mother. Clearly, there was a need to find other means of dealing with his situation than by putting him into a child prison. No one was gaining, least of all that little boy. Nor did such an enforcement do much for the confidence of the community in the enforcement of community sentences—it may, however, have done something for the confidence of a local reporter looking for a lurid headline if the story got printed.
	There has been a worrying increase in the number of breaches coming back to court in the past few years—a threefold rise in the breach of supervision orders in the past seven years—which has in turn led to a rise in breach proceedings leading to custody, which has increased from 18 per cent to 25 per cent over the same period.
	The Bill reduces the discretion of the courts, as Minister just made clear. As a result, breaches of ISSPs resulting in custody rose by 98 per cent in 2005-06. That is an incredible figure, and calls into question whether they have been used as a last resort before other options have been tried and whether they were imposed inappropriately for offences which should not necessarily attract a custodial sentence. That is at the heart of my amendment.
	I therefore strongly recommend to the Government that the Bill be amended to include specific reference to the CRC's requirement, which I quoted earlier, that children are dealt with in ways that are appropriate to their well-being and proportionate to their circumstances and their offence. To do otherwise would be to compound an already unhappy situation, as is the case with the child who is in low-level trouble, and create an infinitely unhappier one. It is surely wrong in principle that a non-imprisonable offence should lead to custody through breach, particularly for children, and more particularly for low-level offending and vulnerable children, whom, as the figures show, breach has rippled out to engulf. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That was an interesting introduction to this question. The noble Baroness raised some interesting points about breaches. Her amendments would alter the powers available to courts for dealing with young people who breached their youth rehabilitation order. I shall not talk about robustness again, because the point has already been made. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that I do not use the term in some macho sense of wanting to be seen to wield a big stick. It is more about getting the balance right between ensuring that custody is truly the last resort and that the new approach to YROs and community sentencing hangs together, is integrated and does for young people the kind of things that noble Lords have talked about. Within that, public confidence is important. It is important that they understand that it is not a soft option to place young people on community sentences. I think that we all agree on that.
	The noble Baroness's Amendments Nos. 36 and 41would remove the provisions which allow courts, both magistrates' and Crown, when re-sentencing for the original offence, to impose a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance, or custody if the young offender is already on a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance and has wilfully and persistently breached their order. The provisions apply even where the original offence would not have warranted such a sentence.
	The amendment would mean that if a young person wilfully and persistently breached the terms of the youth rehabilitation order, they could be re-sentenced only to a further youth rehabilitation order, even if there were multiple breaches. The Bill makes it clear that the measures that we are discussing come into play only for wilful and persistent breach. I assure the noble Baroness that they would not do so for a minor infringement. That is why courts need to be able to raise the bar and use the youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance, or, ultimately, custody.
	Of course, we want to look carefully at the powers that the court has to deal with those young people who have breached the order when they have not committed an imprisonable offence. When that is the case, custody is available in the following circumstances alone. There must have been a wilful and persistent breach of the first youth rehabilitation order. The court can then impose a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance for that persistent and wilful breach. Custody is not available at that point, if the original offence was not imprisonable. The young offender then has to again wilfully and persistently breach the youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance imposed in the first place because of his wilful and persistent breach of the original order. Custody is then available to the court, which is then allowed to make a detention and training order for up to four months—the minimum period of such an order.
	I emphasise to the noble Baroness that this provision really is to deal with wilful and persistent breaches and is not a charter for locking young people up for spurious reasons. The Government have absolutely no interest in wishing to do that. We are talking about what I hope will be a very low number of the worst cases in which, for the sake of the integrity of the whole system, it is important that the courts have that discretion.

Baroness Stern: The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, mentioned the case of a 13 year-old in a child prison, on breach, who was going to continue to breach whatever happened because he wanted to stay at home with his sick mother. This was a child that the noble Baroness met, so we can assume that it is a real child. Is the Minister satisfied in that case that the breaching system and the enforcement—I am not going to say "robust" enforcement; just enforcement—was working as he would like to see it work? If not, what does he think went wrong in that case that we could put right through this Bill?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not going to answer directly—and the noble Baroness would not really expect me to be able to comment on those particular circumstances. What is the guarantee within the Bill that in a similar case a person does not inappropriately end up in wilful breach and then in custody? I refer the noble Baroness to page 168 of the Bill. First, the responsible officer has to use his or her own discretion in making judgments. On page 168, at paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2, the Bill says:
	"If the responsible officer is of the opinion that the offender has failed without reasonable excuse".
	We start from that point.
	We have already discussed the discretion that is available to the responsible officer within the guidelines that will be set down. Then there is the discretion given to the courts. In our previous debate, I referred to the court's ability to substitute one rehabilitation order for another. It could well be that in the circumstances that the noble Baroness raised, one option would be to substitute the RO that the young person was on for another, which would enable that young person to attend to his sick mother. Those are the guarantees.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I thank the Minister for his interesting reply. I had exactly the same thought in my head as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. I wonder whether it would not have made quite a considerable difference if the child's age and circumstances had been taken into account. He was, indeed, a wilful breacher—under very particular circumstances.
	I am sure, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has already indicated, that we will return to this whole issue. I hope that then, instead of keeping this separate, all the amendments will be grouped together and we will consider them as a whole because, although my amendment went slightly further, as the Minister pointed out, the core issues are exactly the same. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: moved Amendment No. 42:
	Schedule 2, page 183, line 26, after "area" insert "or (as the case may be) to a provider of probation services operating in that area"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Meaning of "the responsible officer"]:

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: moved Amendment No. 42A:
	Clause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert "or (as the case may be) an officer of a provider of probation services acting in the local justice area for the time being so specified"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 43:
	Clause 4, page 3, line 25, leave out subsection (3)

Lord Kingsland: In moving Amendment No. 43, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 44 and 46. These amendments are about a Henry VIII power in the Bill. The Secretary of State is being given power to amend other criminal justice primary legislation and, in particular, the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
	The Criminal Justice Act 2003, as the Committee is well aware, is an extremely large Act. As my noble friend Lord Henley said so tellingly, when speaking to the first amendment to this Bill yesterday, much of that Act has not yet been implemented. This Bill already amends it hugely, so why are the Government not using powers already at their disposal to make further amendments?
	However, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not find this clause inappropriate. That is sad, but not surprising. Distressingly, clauses such as this have become a permanent part of our political landscape and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has, however reluctantly, accepted it. In those circumstances, once this amendment has been moved, I intend to beg leave to withdraw it. That is unless one or more Members of the Committee are prepared to be more robust than I have been. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have a long speech and I was going to give forth, but the noble Lord has given the game away: he is not intending to press these amendments. As the noble Lord said, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made no comment about this and we think that these order-making powers are appropriate in the circumstances. I have nothing to argue against.

Lord Kingsland: On reflection, I am extremely sad that the Committee has been deprived of the noble Lord's wisdom. Perhaps I spoke too soon. However, I will keep my promise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
	Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Responsible officer and offender: duties in relation to the other]:

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 45:
	Clause 5, page 4, line 4, after "offender's" insert ", or his immediate family's,"

Lord Kingsland: I am not sure whether the noble Lord was in his place, though he may well have been, during the recent debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. The amendment suggested that a specific criterion should be taken account of by a magistrate when considering a breach. This amendment raises a similar general point to the one made by the noble Earl and other Members of the Committee. It may, of course, invite a similar reply from the Government.
	We are not seeking to have this amendment included in the Bill. We wish to draw it to noble Lords' attention simply because there was a substantive debate on this issue in Committee in another place, which was, uncharacteristically, rather confused. The point here is very straightforward. I hope the Minister will agree that, for children who depend on their parents for the satisfactory fulfilment of their community disposition—transport is the most obvious, but not the only, example—the absence of parental support for religious reasons should be a complete answer to an alleged breach. The point is as straightforward as that. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this more fully than he did his earlier amendment. I have a copy of the Commons debate on this. I suppose the noble Lord is right to say that there was some confusion in the debate. Certainly, on the face of it, this seems a not unreasonable amendment, except in its effect, which could be very confusing. This issue of immediate family, in particular, could cause considerable difficulty. I am not quite sure how one accurately defines "immediate family." It is not clear to me from looking at the detail of the debate in another place. I certainly appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, even though it is not something that we can agree with. It would not be practical to extend the consideration as the amendment does, in the terms that it does, because of the difficulties of definition.
	We should properly be concerned about the duty of the responsible officer to the young person. When sentencing, the court has to take into account the young person's family circumstances, as well as the offender's religious beliefs as stated, before making a youth rehabilitation order. In practice, we would expect that the youth offending team would have regard to the young person's family circumstances in so far as that is practicable. However, taking account of his or her family's religious beliefs should not be a mandatory requirement imposed in the legislation. No doubt that is an issue that could be picked up in the round, and no doubt it is something that would be considered.
	The Bill's approach is consistent with similar provisions in Section 217 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which relates to the adult community order. I should add that interpreting so wide a duty could be fraught with problems of definition. I referred to one such problem in the concept of immediate family. Moreover, a situation could develop where there were conflicting demands or needs—where, for instance, parents are separated and have a different religious belief from the offender's, or where parents as a couple have a different religious belief from the offender's. That said, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

Lord Kingsland: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I found his response somewhat suffocating. The point is really very simple. Let us suppose that the definition of "immediate family" is father or mother. I am not seeking to have this provision in the Bill; I would simply like to have a statement from the government Bench in relation to the religious beliefs of the child's father and mother. If, for plain religious reasons, the father or mother is unable to transport the child to undertake a disposition, would the Government agree that that is a complete answer to any allegation of breach? The Minister looks perplexed.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that it is; that is why I am perplexed. I am not sure that would be the case. It is an answer, but there may be surrounding circumstances that one might need to take into consideration. Let us reflect on this one. I do not want to have an elongated argument about it, because I think that the noble Lord is trying to make a reasonable point in his amendment. He has said that he will not press the amendment, and we will think about it.

Lord Kingsland: I was about to say that I was moving from suffocating to suffocated, but just in time the Minister came with a suitable cylinder of oxygen to save me. I am most grateful for the Minister saying that he will come back on this point and, in those circumstances, I gratefully beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 47:
	Clause 5, page 4, line 12, at end insert "written"

Lord Kingsland: I think I can make this point very briefly, but it has gained added importance since our various discussions this afternoon about the consequences of breach. I know that it is normal practice that instructions are given in writing, but now it seems to me to be crucial that they are. Of course, it is always useful to have proper records of what the offender has been asked to do, but now it is vital. Harsher breach consequences will demand much greater clarity about what the child was or was not asked or required to do. In any case, it seems, if the Government are going to get their way in this Bill on the general question of breach, then the audit trail of what is going on in the world of community orders must be as precise and full as possible. Those are the ideas that have lain behind the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I ought to say at the outset that I understand the noble Lord's point perfectly well, and given the line of argument that we have listened to before, I can see why noble Lords opposite might feel that this is a sensible and practical amendment. I realise that it has been aired in another place and I have read that debate. I was interested and intrigued that Mr Garnier was anxious to avoid, as he described it, over-legislating and over-bureaucratising the system. The allegation is often made that the Government are seeking to do that by legislating in the style and manner we do.
	Our contention is that these matters are already dealt with satisfactorily in guidance. The amendments are therefore not necessary. As many noble Lords will attest, the Youth Justice Board's national standards set out what the responsible officer is required to do in respect of instructions to young offenders made subject to orders. Those standards state that an agreement must be produced with the offender and that it should be in writing and signed. It should specifically include acceptable and unacceptable absence criteria, setting the terms under which a breach might follow. The standards include a right to be treated fairly and with respect, something that we would all endorse. There is also a requirement to behave acceptably, which goes to the core of why such orders will be in place in any event, and the importance of time-keeping is dealt with. As will be appreciated, the last point is important because of the young offenders' sometimes chaotic lifestyles.
	As for the young offender notifying his responsible officer of a change of address, a matter addressed in part in the proposal, immediacy of notification must be the priority. It will be essential for the information to be got to the responsible officer as soon as possible. It could be done by telephone but, in this day and age, it will most probably be by mobile phone or even text message. A requirement to notify a change of address in writing could present difficulties for young people with literacy or learning deficiencies, a feature which we acknowledge is present with many of those who are caught up in the criminal justice system at a younger age.
	I do not believe that it is either necessary or right for the Bill to specify that a responsible officer needs to keep written records of the instructions. This is, after all, basic case management. As we have already outlined, the Youth Justice Board's national standards require instructions to be put in writing and provided to the young offender. All responsible officers must keep valid and accurate records as these may be required subsequently in court. If a young person wants to see details from their case record, they may apply under existing data protection procedures. In our view, it is not appropriate to repeat those in the Bill.
	The amendment is not necessary. The instructions are already clearly set out in national standards. We would fall foul of Mr Garnier's proscription if we were to accede to this amendment.

Lord Kingsland: I am always reluctant to fall foul of my honourable and learned friend in another place. If the Government are going to take the approach to breach that they have said they have, how can they not require in every case the details of the breach to be before the magistrate or judge in writing? The Minister says that national standards require it; but national standards are not always followed. Indeed, there is no legal obligation to follow them. We seek to make it a legal obligation. A person against whom an allegation of breach is made in the court would be perfectly within their rights to say that there was no record of it and that no written instruction was sent to them. That undermines the case for breach. Is this not then in line with what the Government are seeking to do? I am actually trying to help the Government here. Is it not in line with the philosophy on breach outlined earlier today that, correspondingly, the Government ought to have obligations that instructions, and records on the failure to respond to those instructions, are in writing?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I appreciate that the noble Lord is trying to be helpful, but I think that the level of detail that he is attempting to argue should be placed in the Bill is inappropriate. That detail is best left to instructions. The point is very clear and the standards are very clearly set out. In my description, I made that very obvious. I also made the point that responsible officers must keep valid and accurate records as they may be required in court. The noble Lord seemed to suggest that there was no requirement to keep a record. The instructions to responsible officers are very clear: these records must be kept in terms.
	If we were to detail in the Bill this instruction in a particular way and if at some later stage it was felt that that was not the most appropriate form in which it should be set out, we would have to come back to reargue the legislation and use a legislative slot to make that simple change. I do not think that that is an intelligent use of the legislative process. That is one of the reasons why these kinds of matters, important as they are, which I acknowledge, are best kept in the form of guidance which is clear and well understood. That guidance can be consulted on and, from time to time, changed when it suits and when it is right to change. For those reasons, I do not think that the amendment is necessary, nor do I think it is required in the terms set out by the noble Lord.

Lord Kingsland: I find the Minister's reply unusually unconvincing. If national standards are as effective as the noble Lord suggests, in 90 per cent of the cases, what I am asking for will be done anyway; it is the 10 per cent of cases that worry me. In those circumstances a magistrate will be placed in a very different position from the other 90 per cent. I see that the noble Lord is immovable on this matter. I shall reflect on whether I want to pursue it on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
	Clause 5 agreed to.
	Clause 6 agreed to.
	Schedule 4 [Youth rehabilitation orders: consequential and related amendments]:

Lord Geddes: I understand that Amendments Nos. 50 to 62 and 63A and 64A have already been debated although they are not shown as such on the groupings list. Unless any noble Lord objects, I believe they can be moved formally.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 62:
	Schedule 4, page 196, line 15, after "2000" insert "or (as the case may be) a provider of probation services operating in that area"
	Schedule 4, page 196, line 21, leave out from "appoint" to "who" in line 22 and insert "a person"
	Schedule 4, page 196, line 25, at end insert—
	"(5) The person appointed under sub-paragraph (4)(b) must be—
	(a) where the appointment is made by a local probation board, an officer of that board;(b) where the appointment is made by a provider of probation services, an officer of that provider;(c) where the appointment is made by a youth offending team, a member of that team."
	Schedule 4, page 199, line 39, after "reside" insert "or (as the case may be) a provider of probation services operating in the local justice area in which he resides or will reside"
	Schedule 4, page 200, line 2, after "force" insert "or (as the case may be) an officer of a provider of probation services acting in the local justice area in which the offender resides or will then be residing"
	Schedule 4, page 200, line 39, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
	"(b) for "(2) above" substitute "(2) or (2A) (as the case may be)", and(c) in paragraph (b) for the words from "of the" to "board" substitute "of—(i) the offender, or(ii) the officer of a local probation board, officer of a provider of probation services or member of a youth offending team (as the case may be),"."
	Schedule 4, page 202, line 44, leave out from "(3)(b)" to "conferred" and insert "—
	"(a) after "the board" insert "or (as the case may be) require a provider of probation services to appoint an officer of the provider,", (b) after "the order" insert "—(a) ", and(c) at the end insert "; or(b) the functions"
	Schedule 4, page 202, line 47, at end insert—
	"as the case may be."
	Schedule 4, page 209, line 25, after "board" insert "or an officer of a provider of probation services"
	Schedule 4, page 209, line 29, after "board" insert "or an officer of a provider of probation services"
	Schedule 4, page 209, line 32, after "board" insert "or an officer of a provider of probation services"
	Schedule 4, page 209, line 34, after "board" insert "or an officer of a provider of probation services"
	Schedule 4, page 209, line 36, after "board" insert "or an officer of a provider of probation services"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 7 [Youth rehabilitation orders: interpretation]:
	[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: moved Amendment No. 63A:
	Clause 7, page 4, leave out line 42
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: moved Amendment No. 64A:
	Clause 7, page 5, line 50, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 6
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 8 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Purposes etc. of sentencing: offenders aged under 18]:

Lord Thomas of Gresford: moved Amendment No. 65:
	Clause 9, page 7, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
	"(1) After section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) (purposes of sentencing) there is inserted—
	"142 Purposes etc. of sentencing: offenders aged under 18
	(1) This section applies where a court is dealing with an offender aged under 18 in respect of an offence.
	(2) The court must ensure a proportionate response to offending behaviour.
	(3) The court must have regard primarily to the welfare and well-being of the offender, in accordance with its duties under section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 as amended.
	(4) The court shall have regard in particular to—
	(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;(d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;(e) any harm which he has suffered or is at risk of suffering;(f) how capable each of his parents, and any other person in relation to whom the court considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his needs;(g) the range of powers available to the court under this Act in the proceedings in question.
	(5) The court must also—
	(a) have regard to the purposes of sentencing mentioned in subsection (6), in so far as it is not required to do so by subsection (2), and(b) in accordance with section 37 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system, namely to prevent offending (including re-offending) by children and young persons.
	(6) The purposes of sentencing are—
	(a) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders,(b) the protection of the public, and(c) the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.
	(7) This section does not apply—
	(a) to an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law,(b) in relation to the making of a hospital order (with or without a restriction order), an interim hospital order, a hospital direction or a limitation direction under Part 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
	(8) In respect of a proportionate response, as stated in subsection (3), this shall be considered to mean a variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care, in a manner proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence.""

Lord Thomas of Gresford: We move now to Part 2 and we enter into another phase of the Bill dealing with the general sentencing provisions. Clause 9 seeks to amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 by inserting purposes of sentencing of offenders under the age of 18. In particular, the court has to have regard to the purposes of sentencing mentioned in subsection (4). Those purposes set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) are what the Government have in mind. The primary purpose of sentencing is said here to be "the punishment of offenders". Our amendment is directed to that aspect of the clause.
	The amendment seeks to ensure that in the sentencing of children, the child's welfare is a primary concern. We argue that sentencing authorities should have the same duties as family courts in having regard to the welfare of the child as defined in Section 1 of the Children Act 1989. No one with experience of the criminal courts as I have can view, without something approaching despair, the problems that defendants have faced during their lives, particularly defendants under the age of 18. There are certain estates in London, in other large conurbations, not to mention in county towns, where it is extremely difficult for a child to break out of a cycle of crime and offending that exists within a family. If we are to be constructive in this Bill, we have to look for ways of breaking that cycle. One of the ways of breaking it is to take away the primary purpose as punishment and to look at other ways of dealing with young offenders. That is why this amendment sets out different priorities.
	In this amendment, which also seeks to amend Section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act, we suggest in subsection (2) that the court must ensure a proportionate response to offending behaviour. It is not so long ago since the Lord Chancellor sent out an edict that children who are convicted of stealing mobile phones should be dealt with in a particularly harsh way. I have experience of a young man who, at the age of 14, was sent to detention for three and a half years as a result of a series of robberies involving mobile phones within a two or three-week period; 42 months is hardly a proportionate way of dealing with that offence. They were serious offences but three and a half years at the age of 14 is quite an extraordinary punishment.
	In subsection (3) we have put forward a direction to the court that it,
	"must have regard primarily to the welfare and well-being of the offender".
	In subsection (4) we suggest that there should be a checklist that the court has to address when sentencing. It includes,
	"(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding);
	"(b) his physical, emotional and educational needs;
	"(c) the likely effect on him of any change in his circumstances;
	"(d) his age, sex, background and any characteristics of his which the court considers relevant;
	"(e) any harm which he has suffered ...
	"(f) how capable each of his parents ... is ...
	"(g) the range of powers available to the court".
	We feel that that is a suitable checklist that any sentencer should have before him when sentencing someone. We have amended the purposes of sentencing in order to remove punishment as the primary purpose and to put, for youngsters under the age of 18,
	"(a) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders;
	"(b) the protection of the public, and
	"(c) the making of reparation".
	We think this is a much more constructive way of breaking that cycle that exists, to which I have already referred.
	We argue that that conforms with children's rights standards; first, the United Nations standards for juvenile justice—the so-called Beijing rules. Rule 5.1 states:
	"The juvenile justice system shall emphasise the well-being of the juvenile".
	Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which I am sure has been quoted already in Committee, requires that:
	"In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law"—
	and so on—
	"the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration".
	Under Article 40.4 of the convention, there is a requirement that,
	"a variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling"—
	and so on—
	"shall be available ... to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate".
	The Government have moved considerably in many ways in improving what used to be the provision for youngsters under 18. Putting punishment first is going against the conventions to which we are a party. They are instruments requiring that the promotion of welfare and well-being should be the primary consideration in proceedings for children.
	Sentencers will listen if this positive agenda is put before them. They will, we hopes, follow our check list, which may mean that some of the youth orders, such as the youth reparation order that we have been discussing, will be used in circumstances when otherwise prison would be the only alternative. This is a way of ameliorating some of the defects in the criminal justice system affecting young children. It is in accordance with the conventions to which we are a party. I beg to move.

The Earl of Onslow: The amendment is grouped with one of ours. I have been given a signal of two fingers from the other side of the Committee, implying that there are two amendments. The noble Baroness is quite right.
	The substantive point in our two amendments is that the interests of the child should be the first and main thing to be considered. The reasoning behind this is that if the child's interests are looked after properly, that child is more likely to be reformed and made good. That is in the interests of us all. It is in the interests of the sink estates, so ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who moved the amendment. We are all conscious of them. As he rightly said, they are not only in big conurbations but appear in parts of leafy conservative country towns as well. That problem is not confined to inner cities and it is extremely difficult to get to grips with. It is not a very new problem but it will be one that my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will probably address in the future. We can only just struggle to make it better.
	If we get our order of priorities right, which is to ensure that the interests of the child come first, and follow our international obligations, we shall inch a little way further to try to help some of these severely damaged children to the benefit of not only them but us all. I note that in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, there is a great list of things to which the court should have regard. I would hope that the courts would have regard to those things anyway.
	I was slightly depressed to hear of the young man getting three and a half years, which is a quarter of his life, for nicking mobile telephones. I am sure that it is extremely irritating to have one's mobile telephone nicked; I am not defending that offence, but it seems to be quite a harsh sentence. Whether its effect is productive or counterproductive is open to question. It seems to me that the proposals in the amendment should automatically be observed by any judge or magistrate involved in such cases, but I hope that we can concentrate on the important bit, which is the primacy of the child's interests in the criminal justice system as a whole. I support the amendment.

Baroness Stern: I, too, shall speak to Amendments Nos. 66 and 69, so ably spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, but I shall begin with a more general point. I confess that I am bemused by the meaning of,
	"the principal aim of the youth justice system".
	I have read it a number of times, have reflected on it since yesterday, and I still ask myself what the court can think when told:
	"The court must have regard primarily to the principal aim of the youth justice system, that is, to prevent ... reoffending ... by persons aged under 18".
	Obviously, it would not help to achieve that aim to send someone into custody, as the evidence is clear that to do so is a recipe for reoffending. What else does it mean?
	The court does not have the powers to take most of the measures needed to reduce reoffending, such as powers to commission a place in an adolescent mental health unit. I have learnt that the new youth justice legislation introduced in the Republic of Ireland gives the court the power to demand an appropriate mental health placement. The court does not have the powers to demand social work attention, a place in a special school, or any of those aspects of welfare provision that might help to reduce reoffending. The "principal aim" is an extraordinary and inflated view of what a criminal justice system can achieve or what is proper for a justice system to seek to do. This inflated idea of what the system can achieve has landed the Government in substantial difficulty.
	I want to move on to the detail of the amendments spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was surprised to see the provision that in sentencing a child under 18 the,
	"court must have regard primarily to the principal aim of the youth justice system ... to prevent offending (or re-offending)".
	The Explanatory Notes state:
	"Article 3 CRC provides that in all actions concerning children their best interests are to be a primary consideration".
	The Explanatory Notes accept that the duty in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which requires the court to have regard to the welfare of the child, applies, but this is subordinate to the principal aim of the youth justice system.
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote to the Government and asked how they reconciled their position with their obligation under Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government's reply is worth quoting, although it is not that short:
	"We believe it is right that welfare should not be the primary purpose of sentencing and Article 3 of the CRC does not require that it should be. It requires that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. It is. That is why the welfare of the child is specifically mentioned in clause 9 as something the courts must have regard to when sentencing".
	It goes on:
	"A justice system exists to tackle crime. Then it must also consider the needs and interests of victims and the wider community which is why punishment must remain a purpose of sentencing."
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights, unsurprisingly, was not convinced by that reply. The committee therefore concluded that the effect of Clause 9 is to subordinate the child's best interests to the status of the secondary consideration below the primary consideration of crime prevention. The committee therefore recommended that the provision subordinating the duty to have regard to the welfare of the child to the principal aim of the system should be deleted. It also recommended that the Bill should be amended to make it explicit that the welfare of the child should be a primary consideration. These two amendments seek to implement those recommendations. I am glad to support the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: I entirely support the amendment spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I consider it important that we should start at some stage to make the welfare of the child, even the child offender, a primary consideration. I am not certain whether it should be the primary consideration.

The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble and learned Baroness briefly. With the greatest respect, it is slightly tautological to have three primary considerations. Primus inter pares is possible, but there can be only one primary.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: Of course, I bow to the noble Earl's English. He is absolutely right, but it leads me to the point that I am concerned about in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Two points worry me. Perhaps the more important is that it omits punishment of the offender. I believe that sentencing has to take into account that, where appropriate, children have to be punished. We are not in a world where the child's welfare forbids punishment where it is due. Children, like adults, have to be punished on occasions. Not all children have to be punished for all offences. As I wish to say in respect of a later amendment to the Bill, I hope, as indeed the Government choose, to have diversion of children from the offending court where offences have to be dealt with. But to ignore that punishment must be part of the duty of sentencing is to ignore a basic importance for the protection of the public.
	I have not put in a further amendment, but I would like to see something to the effect of the punishment of offenders "where appropriate", which would provide the ability to punish or not to punish as might be appropriate for the child. The other perhaps rather more minor point that I would take issue with in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is that I have the impression that he has taken Section 1(3) of the Children Act word for word into the amendment. I am not in disagreement with paragraphs (b) to (g), although I am not certain that (g) is appropriate. I am concerned about (a). I am not sure how far,
	"the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child",
	which are entirely appropriate in children proceedings, are equally appropriate in criminal proceedings. Of course the child as a defendant and the child whose welfare is to be considered have to be consulted. I am not certain that that needs to be put into primary legislation. That is something that the court would have to do in any event.
	My preference is to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, which probably covers all that is necessary, although I have no objection to the majority of what is said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, apart from the two points. However, I feel strongly that one has to keep punishment in, even if it is punishment "where appropriate", as I would prefer.

The Earl of Onslow: If a child has no conception that it has done wrong; if a child cannot comprehend, then punishment cannot be appropriate. If the child nicks a Mars bar, it has to know that it should not have nicked the Mars bar. Then punishment is legitimate. If the child does not know what it has done wrong, then one has to leave punishment out and go to reformism. Am I wrong?

Baroness Butler-Sloss: I certainly would not see a child who did not have the understanding of the allegation made against him. He is not someone whom one should be punishing in the sense that I was looking at punishment. However, there are children who offend who need to be told that this is unacceptable behaviour and that they have to answer for the consequences of what they have done. We cannot take welfare to take all children out of the criminal justice system, but there are out there many children who offend as a response to their appalling upbringing and dreadful background. Those children probably need help rather than punishment.

Lord Judd: I support the amendment with the qualification that most of my reasons for wanting to support it were expressed in my remarks on Amendment No. 1 yesterday, and it would be taking a liberty to repeat those arguments all over again. Whatever I think of my noble friend from time to time, most of the time he is a decent chap trying to field a difficult wicket. Having said that, he is literate and he knows very well what we said to Amendment No. 1. It applies equally strongly today. I want to take up warmly the point made by the noble Earl. We are in a muddle conceptually about what we are doing. If a child is not aware that he has transgressed, then punishment is wrong.
	The point is to help the child to understand how they have transgressed. It is a social educational point because society failed that child in one way or another. Even in the context of the family, the child has been failed. It does not have the sense of right and wrong that we all take for granted; not that we always live by it. Sooner or later one has to bare one's chest: I believe that the concept of punishment has more to do with assuaging society's emotional needs than with getting the situation right. It is often emphasised to appease the wilfully ignorant popular press. It seems that as one who will never give up on the fight for rehabilitation being the principal objective, because it makes so much sense—I have said it so often that I will not say again why it makes so much sense—of course the noble Baroness is right that there are some people who know perfectly well that they have done wrong and it needs to be pointed out to them that that is not acceptable in society.
	I would be happier if we could get back to old-fashioned language in this context and talk more about corrective action to break a deviant in society: "come on board". But I worry about the social and psychological implications of punishment and its real motivation, conscious or subconscious.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: Briefly, I support both these amendments. The use of the word "punishment", as applied to what you do as opposed to the act of sentencing, is where I part company with my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss. Of course, somebody who is too young and has a lack of understanding and all the other aspects referred to cannot possibly be subject to any form of punishment; correction, maybe. They should be shown a better way of life, and helped and guided not to reoffend.
	Above all, we are back to the preventive side of all of this. This is where the effort must be, and where the Government and everybody who speaks on this wish to place emphasis. On this detailed list of additions to Part 2, they are very lengthy and a lot have come up in previous debates. Some could perhaps be cut back a little but, by and large, they underline the important aspects of what sentencers should be taking into account as they decide what to do in the best interests of the child and society. It is about time we faced up to this pretence that you will protect society by sounding fierce, and began to educate the public rather more that the best way to protect them is to ensure that we turn as many young people and their families on to a better understanding of how a better life can be achieved.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I, too, support these amendments. They refer directly back to the important debate we had at the start of Committee, where we tried to address the overarching principles which inform, or should inform, the Bill. They here move from those basic principles to the purposes of sentencing, how the principles are translated into the sort of outcomes we seek, and the practical realities of how they are to be achieved. We come back once again to the central principle and purpose of the overarching welfare of the child, and its best interests being the primary—as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, reminded us—consideration.
	Article 44 of the CRC requires that:
	"A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence".
	That is the fuller quote of what I spoke to in the previous amendment. This articulates exactly the template—if you articulate templates—that we need to guide us through the outcomes we should be seeking for our children, which are, in turn, translated admirably into the amendment before us today. Ideally, I would prefer to swap subsections (2) and (3), putting "welfare" before "proportionate response", but I will not quibble with that. I am sure that all Members of the Committee would heartily agree with the concluding purposes of reform, rehabilitation, public protection and reparation by offenders. However, I know that the Government's position is that punishment should form part of the menu of purposes; not only have they, as the Minister has today, said so clearly, it is the first of the list of purposes in the Bill. However, it is excluded from the amendment.
	I have listened carefully, and I am not surprised by what the distinguished noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has said about punishment, but I do not know that this is necessarily a forum for discussing something so huge and complex as what constitutes "punishment", what we mean by it and where it comes in a whole range of circumstances, although we must somehow try to nail a little of it in the Bill.
	The fact remains that it is largely because of the desire to deliver punishment, which could be characterised in this context as a frightening and unpleasant experience and how you "learn your lesson", that the alarming rise in child custody has taken place against a fall in offending. We also discussed that at length last night. Children and society are being further damaged; I do not think that there will be dispute over that. The key principles have been departed from.
	My experience of rigorous, systematic programmes of reparation and restoration are that they can be difficult, demanding and challenging for children, as well as unpleasant. However, they are also essentially constructive, which is perhaps the difference in this context between reparation, restoration and straight punishment. Punishment is essentially more negative. The punishment of prison is negative both in its application—by which I mean the rupturing of family, home, work or school—and the outcomes for reoffending, criminalising and so on.
	I declare an interest as I chair the Rethinking Crime and Punishment initiative—a modest little title—which has been looking at the use of custody and its alternatives in general, theoretical and practical terms over the past five years. In practical terms, we have been doing this in the Thames Valley, Cheshire and, shortly, in London. We have been developing a deeper level of engagement between judges and magistrates, and the programmes and community-based providers of alternatives in the community, including the offenders themselves. We have also been bringing local members of communities concerned into the choice and delivery of the sort of community reparation and restoration they would like to see. The results are very encouraging. We are developing, in certain ways, the Government's community payback schemes but with the crucial difference that the sentencers—the people who actually make the decisions—are essentially part of the programme. The understanding we have seen develop has also led to some palpable changes in attitude to community penalties by both sentencers and communities.
	The amendment therefore moves us on from a relatively simplistic, knee-jerk recourse to punishment, to something which is not only more appropriate to children's needs but, crucially, involves making good the damage done. It is a positive response. I am sure that those are the lessons we want all our children to learn. I would argue that we bring up our own children along those principles—not just giving them a really hefty wallop; although I have certainly been known to do that from time to time. Anyway, that is what we want for our young offenders.
	Finally, I firmly believe that the belief of politicians in particular, and also the press—whose views feed off each other with their mutual, essentially short-term, interests of holding on to a seat and selling tomorrow's newspaper—do not represent the broad views of the public, which are far less retributive than they would have us believe. At RCP, we conducted our own poll through Mori which demonstrated that, and there has been a steady stream of similar polls in the past year or so. Most interestingly, last year, for the first time, there was a poll of the victims of crime. It was published by SmartJustice and showed, inter alia, that just under two-thirds did not believe that prison prevents offending and only 38 per cent supported the building of more prisons. What everybody wants above all is that the offender does not do it again—here I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. We all know that prison cannot achieve that, most especially with children, but that community interventions can and do. However, the fact still remains, as we discussed at some length on our first day in Committee, that the current purposes of sentencing are failing to an enormous extent. This amendment represents an important building block in the changes that we need to see.

The Earl of Listowel: I support the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I welcome the strong emphasis on the welfare of children. I recognise what my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss said about the need for sanctions, boundaries and punishment for children where appropriate. However, considering that there are more than 3,000 children in custody in this country, while France and Germany combined have only 1,300, we have to say that we are not getting the balance between welfare and punishment right. I particularly welcome this amendment because, despite the welcome efforts of this Government in the provision for foster care, social work, psychiatric units and residential care, we still have so much further to go in that. We still lack about 10,000 foster carers, and demand for social workers still exceeds supply. We put the most vulnerable children into children's homes to be cared for by the least qualified staff. A survey looking at residential childcare workers in this country and on the continent found that in this country 20 per cent had a degree-level qualification, but in Germany it was 50 per cent and in Denmark it was 90 per cent. We have so far to go in this area. I welcome the emphasis on considering the welfare interest of the child because it forces us to think that we are imprisoning—putting behind bars—many children. Of course we have to punish some, and we have to put some children in those settings, but we, as a society, have failed many children by failing to provide them with consistent, well supported carers, by failing to support our foster carers over a long period of time, and by failing to put what is necessary into children's homes.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the mobile phone incident and the children who were given a three-and-a-half year sentence. At that time, a young man called Joseph Scholes was in a children's home. When that response to the mobile thefts took place, he was newly there and went out with a group of his peers. One of the others stole a mobile phone and because of the strength of feeling about that at the time Joseph Scholes ended up with a custodial sentence—that very vulnerable young man. I cannot speak specifically about the children's home, but I know that generally speaking staff in children's homes need far more support than they get. If only the staff in that children's home had had the support to engage that young man and stop him going out in the street. He ended up being sent into custody. It was recognised that he was highly vulnerable, but there was no place for him in an overcrowded system, and he ended up in a young offenders institution. He was put under watch, but it was not good enough, and he hanged himself. I think I am correct to say that there was a history of abuse in the family.
	I welcome this amendment, and I look forward to the Minister's response. This amendment implies that it is no longer acceptable to lock up children as frequently as we do—to put them behind bars as frequently as we do—because of the lack of a decent welfare alternative: foster carers, social workers and residential carers. I hope the Minister will welcome the spirit of this amendment.

Lord Bridges: I follow my noble friend from a rather different angle in supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. When I retired from the public service some 20 years ago, I found myself, rather to my surprise, as chairman of the British branch of the United Nations Children's Fund. One of our first tasks in the years that followed was the negotiation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we made a considerable contribution that was not always well received by Governments in this country. Looking at the terms of Clause 9 in Part 2, which deals with sentencing, I can say that those of us who have operated in the field of international child welfare find it a strange reaction because it appears that we are still concentrating on sentencing rather than on the rights and needs of the child. From my background, that looks like a very odd approach.

Lord Kingsland: The more I listen to this superb debate, the more I am coming to the conclusion that the right place for the amendment to Clause 1 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, is in Clause 9. I shall go no further than to say that I am extremely sympathetic to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Onslow and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. However, I wonder whether we ought to reflect further on where we locate the excellent contribution that the noble Baroness made yesterday, because it might affect the way that we approach the question of the primary purpose of sentencing, particularly when details follow that are not consistent with what the noble Baroness wishes.
	I shall not pursue that point any further because I want to address the conformity of the clause with our international obligations; a matter upon which I found the JCHR report especially impressive. As your Lordships are by now well aware, the Bill provides that,
	"where a court is dealing with an offender aged under 18 in respect of an offence ... The court must have regard primarily to the principal aim of the youth justice system, that is, to prevent offending (or re-offending) by persons aged under 18 ... The court must also ... have regard to the purposes of sentencing"—
	which are,
	"the punishment of offenders ... the reform and rehabilitation of offenders ... the protection of the public, and ... the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences".
	The court must also have regard to the welfare of the offender, as required by Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. That duty is expressly made subject to the new duty to have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system. It is extraordinary to reflect that in 1933 an Act could take such an enlightened approach in what we regard, perhaps not entirely rightly, as being a less enlightened age.
	The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that:
	"The Government does note that Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that in all actions concerning children their best interests are to be a primary consideration. The duty under section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, to have regard to the welfare of the particular child ... will continue to apply".
	However, Clause 9 clarifies that where the court is sentencing a juvenile offender it must primarily have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system.
	Why do the Government consider that that provision is compatible with the obligation in Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to ensure that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children? Their view, as I understand it, is that it is right that the courts should have regard primarily to the principal aim of the youth justice system when sentencing a young offender. The Government see no incompatibility with Article 3, apparently because that article only requires the welfare of the child to be "a" primary consideration in sentencing, not "the" primary consideration. The obligation in the CRC is to ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration in all decisions affecting children.
	However, the effect of Clause 9 of the Bill is to subordinate the best interests of the child to the status of a secondary consideration below the primary consideration of crime prevention; in other words, to treat the welfare of the child as a mere supporting factor. In our view, the Bill should be amended to delete the provision which subjects the duty to have regard to the welfare of the child to the primary duty to have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system. We also believe that the Bill should state that the sentencing court is required to have regard to the welfare of the child as a primary consideration as required by the convention.
	I have a second point about the consistency of the Bill with our international obligation. If your Lordships glance at proposed new Section 142A(4) in Clause 9, which they will have already done, they will see the statement about the purposes of sentencing, which are:
	"the punishment of offenders ... the reform and rehabilitation of offenders ... the protection of the public, and ... the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences".
	These purposes seem to me to be indistinguishable from the purposes set out for adult sentencing. How do these purposes differ from the purposes of adult sentencing?
	As the Minister is well aware, we are signatories to more than one international convention which make it absolutely clear that the approach to sentencing children is entirely distinct to the approach to sentencing adults. I find none of this in the proposed new section in Clause 9, despite these obligations. So what has driven the Government in setting out a series of purposes, as they have done?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Like the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I think this has been a riveting debate and it has been a real privilege to have listened to the contributions of noble Lords. In one sense there was quite a profound disagreement; on the other hand, it is quite clear that all of us share the same aims. I will seek to reflect that in my response.
	I am very sympathetic to the pressures on young people and to the many concerns that have been expressed about the condition of society in which many of them find themselves. Anyone who has been or is a parent will understand that. Call me old-fashioned but I think the great majority of people know the difference between right and wrong and that when someone has done something wrong, they should be punished for it. I do not think that is a knee-jerk reaction from the media.

The Earl of Onslow: The more we go on with this, the more I want to come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said about the child in the Bulger case having a mental age of four. Of course the knee-jerk reaction in a case like that, because one is so horrified by what has happened, is to tear the little brute to pieces and feed them to the cat, or whatever. That is what one's immediate emotional reaction should be. But if the child has a mental age of four at the age of 10, that child cannot possibly understand the meaning of punishment. So the adult reaction of tearing it to pieces and throwing them to the wolves—I exaggerate a bit obviously—seems to me to be something which we have to restrain and hold back. Of course the noble Lord is right in that that is how people react, but should we not in legislation try to rise above that if we think there is a better way to go about it?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am not going to comment on the Bulger case. Of course there will be situations in which a child cannot understand that what he or she has done is wrong. Clearly you need a system that will respond to that. I was just making the general point that most people understand and support the idea of punishment. In my early days as a councillor in Oxford, I represented—I am not going to call it a sink estate because that would be pejorative—a council estate that had many challenges. Notwithstanding the difficult circumstances in which some young people are brought up, it is striking how many of them manage to do the right thing. One has to bear that in mind when considering these matters.
	This debate has taken place in the context of custody. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, particularly focused on children who find themselves in custody. I hope I have made clear that this Government believe that custody is the last resort, that the construct of youth rehabilitation orders is to strengthen the whole community sentencing structure and that we see YROs and the general policy direction we wish to see embraced as one where punishment can be constructive.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I am grateful to the noble Lord for letting me intervene. I just wonder what he means by punishment. It is such a wide-ranging word and notion. In what he is saying at the moment, what does he mean by punishment?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I mean that people have to face up to the consequences of what they have done through the various sanctions that are in place. But as part of that sanctioning process, there can be constructive programmes, hence the emphasis on the prevention of reoffending. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said about some of the issues around social care and fostering. We took part in the Children (Leaving Care) Bill a number of years ago which reflected on some of the very poor outcomes of children in care. There is much that we need to do for those children who end up in custody but we should not run away from the fact that punishment is part of the framework we are dealing with.

Lord Judd: Language is important. Sometimes the way in which we use language suggests that the differences are greater than they are between us. My noble friend suggested very good terminology himself a few moments ago, when he said that sanctions might be necessary. Let us consider a loving parent bringing up a young child who is being very difficult—I think of my grandchildren at the age of 4 or whatever. It is not punishment that is required; it is spelling out to them that, if they behave in an anti-social way, they will lose some of the things that they want because their behaviour will not be tolerated. It involves developing the power to reason, to understand and to take things into account. Sanction is a much better—and stronger—word than punishment.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand that, but there is always a danger that, because in this day and age we are sometimes so frightened to call a spade a spade, we are disingenuous and people do not understand exactly what we mean. There is a real debate to be had about—

The Earl of Onslow: I take up what the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said. In certain circumstances, punishment means retribution. We are not, I hope, talking about punishment as retribution. If we talk about punishment as education or help, we can happily talk about it. Punishment also should have an element of deterrence. In an article on capital punishment Lord Gardiner, when he was Lord Chancellor, said that retribution, deterrence and reformation were the three points of punishment. One cannot use the word "punishment" only as retribution, and I slightly got the impression that the Minister was doing that. I am trying to help the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, as well as the Minister. I am even sometimes thinking my own thoughts out loud to get to the bottom of this complicated matter.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do not disagree with what the noble Earl said. I hope that I did not give the impression that I simply saw punishment as retribution. I think that I said earlier that it could be part of a constructive approach to helping young people move away from the circumstances in which they commit crimes and helping them to rehabilitate and not to reoffend. On a technical point, I wish to make it clear that, although punishment is listed first, it is not a hierarchical list. The purposes of sentences have equal weight, but they are subject to the principal aim of the youth justice system.
	One of the glories of these debates is that Members of the Committee read out my answers because they have already been placed on the record. I do not want to bore the Committee by repeating that. However, I shall speak a little on Clause 9, which is designed to clarify the current law in order to remove confusion and to bring sentencing into line with the rest of the youth justice system. It is interesting that this has been welcomed by a number of relevant organisations. The Magistrates' Association welcomes the clarity that the clause will introduce for magistrates when they are sentencing youths in the court. The Youth Justice Board welcomes this clarity, which would further emphasise the principal aim of the youth justice system. Interestingly, the Nacro response, is that, in view of the principal aim of the youth justice system to prevent offending, as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, it is congruent to make this more clearly the purpose of sentencing. It is also interesting that, in December 2006, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, said that it believed that the primary focus of the youth justice system should be the prevention and reduction of offending for those who are already in trouble. A number of organisations have commented in general in support of the way in which Clause 9 is constructed.
	Members of the Committee have again referred to Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the need to ensure that in all actions undertaken in a court of law the best interests of the child are a primary consideration. The Government believe that, while of course that is the position, it should not be "the" primary consideration. I realise that there is a bit of problem of semantics between "a primary" and "the primary". The noble Earl knows what I mean, even if he thinks that it is an incorrect use of English.

The Earl of Onslow: If we have got any sense, we cannot put into law something that is not crystal clear. All that does is give my learned friends larger pay cheques, and we surely do not need to do that.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We certainly do not want to do that if it will drain my legal aid budget.
	I accept that clarity is very important, and we hope that the clause provides clarity. In the first instance, when sentencing a young offender, the court should have regard to and the primary consideration should be the prevention of reoffending. We have a justice system that exists to tackle crime and, at its heart, needs to address offending or reoffending behaviour. Of course, it is the duty of the court to take into account the needs and interests of victims and the wider community, as well as those of the offender. We remain convinced that work to prevent offending must be in the young person's best interests. A young person's welfare must be considered in the sentencing process, which is why the courts are required to have regard to the welfare of the young offender. The courts are required to do that at present, and they will continue to do that.
	Much of the primary responsibility for the welfare of young people lies with the youth offending teams and service providers who have day-to-day responsibility for the child. In practice, it should be the responsibility of the youth offending teams to provide the court with the welfare background as part of the information provided in the pre-sentence report required before a community sentence may be made. The pre-sentence report is a key to effective working of the youth rehabilitation order, as it will act as a source document for the court's decision-making process. The pre-sentence report needs to include all relevant details on the young person and put forward recommendations to the court on appropriate interventions.
	On the youth rehabilitation order, the recommendations should cover which requirements are appropriate and what their duration should be on the basis of an assessment of the individual young person's needs. While I accept that it is fundamental that a criminal court, when sentencing a child or a young person, should have regard, as one of the primary considerations, to the welfare of the child, we cannot accept that that should override other considerations that a criminal court must take into account.
	I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, asked me about Clause 9. The advice that I have received is that new Section 142A(3)(b) in Clause 9 is not subordinate to the purpose of sentencing, the principal aim of which is to prevent offending. Having considered what the noble Lord said about our international treaties, we said to the JCHR—we believe that we were right—that we thought that we were compliant with our international obligations.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: The Minister will forgive me for interrupting. In family cases and in others, the phrase "best interests" has very frequently been equated with welfare. It is a primary consideration under Article 3. Does the Minister really think that new Clause 142A(3)(b), which refers to having,
	"regard to the welfare of the offender",
	is the equivalent of a primary consideration? My interpretation is that it is coming a long way down the scale. I accept what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, says, but it is certainly not up the scale, as a primary consideration would be.

Lord Dholakia: There seems to be a considerable difference of opinion between his understanding of Clause 9 and what is interpreted by many of us on different Benches. Does he intend to produce a code of practice that will give some substance to what he is saying, in terms of the interpretation of Clause 9 for sentences? If so, would it be possible to see a draft of such a document before Report?

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: There would be the intention of producing sentencing council guidelines, which would not be ready before Report, but I will certainly see whether I can provide further information to noble Lords in this area.
	I take seriously the comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The advice I have received is that the construction of the clause meets the requirement. I will certainly have a look at it between now and Report to double check that that is so. I have to take the comments of the noble Baroness very seriously—

Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord is being interrupted inordinately, but he did make a point about my construction of the convention. I disagree with the advice that the noble Lord has received about the CRC. The only way in which Clause 9 can possibly conform with the CRC is if new Section 142A(2) reads, "The court must have regard to the principle aims of the youth justice system, which are to prevent offending or re-offending by persons under 18, and have regard to the welfare of the offender".

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I understand what the noble Lord is getting at. It will be helpful if I reflect on this in the light of those comments and come back. The clear intent is that the welfare of the child, as enacted in the 1933 Act, has the effect that I have stated. Clearly, it would be helpful if I had a look at that.

The Earl of Listowel: Could the Minister say when, as a matter of course, as the YOTs are preparing these reports, a clinical psychologist is involved? That goes back to the earlier debate about the maturity of the child. That is the key professional, as I understand, who is turned to, to decide what level of development a child has reached. YOTs are well respected, but there is some concern that they do not have the welfare emphasis that they might have. It is welcome that the Minister is going to consider whether the welfare aspect of this could be reinforced in some way.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I did not say that. I said that, in view of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I will double check to make sure that the clause meets the requirements on the Government in relation to the consideration that needs to be given to the welfare of the child, which is a primary consideration but not the primary consideration.
	On the question of the availability of different professionals to youth offending teams, I cannot say that every YOT will always have access to a particular professional. If the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, had intervened, he might have asked for a speech and language therapist as well. It is clear that it is right that YOTs should have access to proper advice, guidance and help. That is one of the aims that we seek to achieve.

The Earl of Listowel: I hear what the Minister says, and I am grateful for his response. I do not know if the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, would agree with me, but, if we are dealing with vulnerable children and are looking for good professionals, I would be grateful to hear a little bit more about the involvement of clinical psychologists in giving advice to the teams. The reports are clearly crucial to getting the right response. If there is not sufficient availability of this, it would concern me.

Lord Kingsland: There was a second issue that I raised about the conformity of Clause 9 with our international obligations, and that related to new Section 142A (4), on the purposes of sentencing. As I recall it, I asked the noble Lord how those four categories differed from the purposes of adult sentencing. On the face of it, there is nothing here that is specific to children, despite the fact that we have accepted in a number of international conventions that the principles of sentencing for children are quite distinct from those for sentencing for adults. I would be most grateful if the Minister could respond on that matter.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Surely the response is in new Section 142A(3), on the regard that the court must have to the welfare of the offender. We have debated exactly what that means, but surely that is the distinction: it is contained there, and therefore it is a consideration?

Lord Kingsland: Those are the principles, but these are the purposes of sentencing. It is quite a distinct matter from the previous clauses. What I am interested in is how these purposes differ from those for adult sentences.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I may be dense—

Lord Kingsland: No one could accuse you of that.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The point that I am making is that the court must have regard to a number of matters. It has to have regard primarily to the aims of the youth justice system, so that that in itself is surely a distinguishing mark. Secondly, it must have regard to the purposes of sentencing mentioned in new Section 142A(4) and to Section 44 of the Children and Young People Act. That is surely what gives it its distinction.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting and crucial debate.
	I underline the fact that we are dealing with offenders under 18. I became a recorder in 1974. That is probably the lowest rung on the ladder of judicial preferment. When, in 2002, I received a letter from a civil servant in the Lord Chancellor's Department, I was still standing on the same rung. During those 28 years, I had experience of the Crown Court as a sentencer, and I had experience of the problems of the people who were brought before the court—

The Earl of Onslow: May I—

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am most grateful to the noble Earl. He is always very helpful to me.

The Earl of Onslow: Is the noble Lord just about to withdraw his amendment? If so, there is one thing that I would like to say before he does. A look of despair crosses the face of the noble Lord, for which I apologise.
	A suggestion was put by my noble friend Lord Kingsland that the new first clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, should be amalgamated with this. I would just like to say that I think that is a totally excellent idea. A team of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I could produce a proper agreed amendment which we could be properly beastly over on Report, if the Government do not listen to what we are saying.
	I am sorry to have interrupted the noble Lord, and I hope that that cloud can now vanish from his face.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am most grateful to the noble Earl—at least we did not have Genghis Khan this time. The suggestion that we get together and consider whether the amendments can constructively form a new clause to put in place of the present Clause 9 is one that I shall follow.
	I was reminiscing about my experiences as a recorder when the noble Earl intervened. I wanted to give noble Lords a feeling for the mindset of those who deal with offenders when they are young. The first object is to get that person to take a different course. One learns of the familial cycles—father, son, grandfather—where members of the same family constantly turn up in court. In my time, I have certainly dealt with two generations, if not three. Generally speaking, such a young person under the age of 18 has an ill developed or malformed sense of right and wrong. The Minister and others have said that most people know what is right and wrong. That is not true. In some deprived families, there is a moral climate in which dishonesty is a way of life. Getting the better of other people is what life is about, and violence is accepted. That applies not just to the members of the family itself but to the peers of the young person, the gangs that roam around and, for example, steal mobile phones.
	What one finds with people under 18 is a lack of example from people who can show them that there is a better way of life. In sentencing young people, the first thought that comes into one's mind is whether there is any way of turning this person from a life of crime. When a convicted offender comes before you, the barrister who is representing him will talk about what a terrible time he had as a child and will go into all those issues. By the time that person is 19, 20 or 21 and has been through all the processes—probation, what used to be borstal, youth offending or whatever—you have to say, "Tough. Society cannot deal with you in any other way except to lock you up, if the offence is serious enough, for its own protection. You have had your chances; you have not changed your ways; all sorts of interventions have been tried in an attempt to deal with you. We are sorry that you had a bad time as a child, but you have to take responsibility and face up to the consequences and disagreeable sanctions". I think that that was the definition of punishment for which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was striving.
	However, there is a stage before that. In dealing with someone who is under 18, we are hoping that we can reform and rehabilitate them and set the boundaries to which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred. It is not punishment that will set boundaries for young people; it is encouragement, the teaching of values, the providing of leadership and of role models, so that the young person appreciates that they do not have to engage in crime. They do not have to follow their family or their peers.
	For those reasons, I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, when he poses the question to which we have really had no answer: how do the purposes set out in Clause 9 differ from the way in which the purposes of sentencing are applied to adults? There should be a difference. There is a possibility of reform and rehabilitation. It is not enough to say that everybody understands punishment and that society wreaks vengeance on those who offend against its tenets. The public have to be protected, but we know that, for young people, detention and prison are failing; punishment in that sense is not working. It is not working because detention and imprisonment—we have said this so many times, but it is worth saying it at every opportunity—do not provide the facilities, because of overcrowding, that teach people who are locked up about values and give them the leadership that they require. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, also took issue, to a much lesser extent, with the proposal that the sentencing court should ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child. For many years, I have referred in the House to the children's panels in Scotland as a much more constructive way of dealing with young people. You are involving, in a far less formal way, the children who are at risk and their parents and are trying to work out, with them, what their problems are and how they can best be addressed. The way in which we approach juvenile crime in this country, by a lower-level system of courts, is not good enough. We need much more of the children's panel system which is that much more successful in Scotland. I say that not because of my Scottish connections or because my noble friend Lady Linklater is sitting next to me. It is because the statistics show that the system works better by preventing reoffending to a greater degree and permitting children to break out of that cycle.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says that we have to have punishment because people understand the concept. What I am always looking for from a Government of any hue is leadership to educate the public that there is a better way of dealing with young people than locking them up. We should not be paying heed to the cries of the popular press; we should be educating, not following, public opinion in this most important area.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Does the noble Lord accept that this is not about locking people up? Although we have moved on to Part 2, most of our debate has been about Part 1 and youth rehabilitation orders, which are designed to reinforce the point that custody is a last resort and that we need to put much greater emphasis on—dare I say it?—rigorous community sentences.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I think that I indicated to the noble Lord yesterday that the phrase "last resort" had been used over the past 15 years, during which period the number of children in custody has doubled. It does not seem in any way to restrict custody. However, I take the noble Lord's point.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Lord speaks about the past 15 years. The figures between 1997 and now have been pretty stable.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: The word "punishment" is being treated by the noble Lord, as it has been treated by others, as the equivalent of custody. But punishment is equally community service; it is equally anything else. It is clear that the noble Lord has focused on punishment as custody. When I spoke of punishment, I really meant the whole, broad spectrum. I was not thinking about custody in particular.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for that intervention. As my noble friend Lady Linklater asked, what does "punishment" mean in these circumstances? We have not come in our debate today, wide-ranging as it has been, to a common view of what it means.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, from his experience, gave us an international perspective. We have been discussing the conventions that set down international standards. The clause does not meet those standards; the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, made that clear. I am pleased to hear from the Minister that he will consider the clause in response to pressure from noble Lords around the Committee. I shall be interested to see whether he feels, in the light of the criticisms that have been made, that the current clause should be amended.
	I still commend the amendment that we tabled. There may be criticisms that can be made of it, which we can consider in the light of today's speeches before Report.

Lord Judd: The noble Lord has as usual made a powerful contribution, but there are two questions that I hope that he will answer in his final remarks. He seemed to indicate earlier that, when he had been a recorder, he had struggled with the issue of how you rescued somebody from a life of crime and said that, when you had tried this and tried that, you came to a point at which you had to say, "Well, sorry, you may have had a hell of an upbringing, a hell of an experience, but nothing's worked, and the only possibility is to put you away". Does the noble Lord not really believe that he should say, "The point has been reached at which we have to try a more disciplined approach to your rehabilitation than has perhaps been possible by all the other means, and, therefore, we are taking you into custody to have an intensive course"? That is what we should strive at.
	The other element of what the noble Lord said raises a wider and more contentious debate, but it underlies a lot of our position. I remember listening to a very senior policeman of a very enlightened hue, who said, "The trouble is that, if you live in a society in which the social mores of the successful are greed, short cuts, getting what you can without being too squeamish about how you've done it, where is your moral authority to appeal to those at the bottom of the pile? Where is your credibility when you start talking about the threat to society and saying that we must therefore lock someone up?" I do not say it lightly, and I am sure that the concept of hypocrisy means little to many of the youngsters with whom we are concerned, but we are often seen as a pretty hypocritical society.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: The second point of the noble Lord was so wide that I was looking for assistance to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark as to how completely to revamp the morals of our society. I shall not do that with the amendment that I have suggested to the Committee. However, I largely share his views about the lapse in standards and join him in asking what one can do about it. However, it is such a wide debate that I cannot go into it.
	In response to his first question, I say that I share his concern that, when we lock people up, we are not doing anything positive with them. Adults are outside the terms of reference of the amendment, but I share the noble Lord's concern that we do not simply throw away the key when they are locked up, when all the other ways in which we have attempted to deal with the person's problems have failed. We must still try; we must still have the resources available to put on the courses to which the noble Lord referred.
	I have already wearied the Committee for long enough. I will accept the invitation of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to discuss further—I hope with the Minister and certainly with other participants in the debate—ways in which we can positively take the issue forward. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Onslow: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 66:
	Clause 9, page 7, leave out lines 9 to 17 and insert—
	"(2) The court must have regard primarily to the welfare of the offender, in accordance with section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.
	(3) The court must also—
	(a) have regard to the aim of preventing offending (or re-offending) by persons aged under 18, and(b) have regard to the purposes of sentencing mentioned in subsection (4), so far as it is not required to do so by paragraph (a) above."

The Earl of Onslow: One must thank everybody for taking part in this debate. The cliché "wide-ranging" immediately springs to my lips. There is still confusion of purpose at the heart of the Bill. The clause is not well enough written. As my noble friend Lord Kingsland suggested, we must try to put together this purpose and the original purpose of punishment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. I accept, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, that there must be an element of punishment, but we do not always know what punishment means. These questions become deeper and more complicated the more one thinks of them. We can but struggle. I give the Government, and especially the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, credit for trying to get their heads around the matter and to do something about it. It is horribly complicated and difficult, and the crimes will be here generation after generation. I hope that I will get together with other noble Lords.

[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee not begin again before 8.39 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Zimbabwe

Lord Blaker: asked Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the prospects for a resolution of the political, economic and human problems in Zimbabwe.
	My Lords, we can see now why Robert Mugabe's representatives at the series of talks arranged by President Mbeki following the SADC meeting in March 2007 were so often late in arriving or said that they were unable to attend at all. It has been Mugabe's objective right through the nine months of the infrequent talks to make the proceedings last as long as possible so that the new constitution which was eventually agreed would not come into force before the elections. That has now been achieved by Mugabe. The elections will take place at three levels and will now be held on 29 March this year.
	The registration of candidates was originally to be completed this week; now it has been extended to next week. The new constitution has been initialled but not signed. ZANU-PF has clearly not been taken by surprise. It has been accumulating supplies of food, which Mugabe has for a long time been using for political purposes and which are said to be intended to amount to a few trillions of Zimbabwe dollars. ZANU-PF has, of course, had warning of the impending elections. In a cynical ploy to buy votes the regime has announced that it will over coming weeks open people's shops across the country to provide the basic commodities that are generally unavailable in Zimbabwe.
	Developments as recently as today show that Mugabe's control of events is faltering. The postponement of the nomination day for a week seems to have been taken more in panic in ZANU-PF than with a sudden concern for the democratic process. The emergence yesterday of Simba Makoni from within ZANU-PF as a challenger for the presidency shows Mugabe's increasing isolation. This suggests that the political landscape of Zimbabwe could alter dramatically with new alliances and formations. Mugabe's fightback could be vicious. Makoni is reckoned by many to have prevaricated and supped with the devil for too long. Both he and Arthur Mutambara are widely claimed to lack grassroots support, while Morgan Tsvangirai has courageously led the mainstream MDC since its foundation and has won both scars and voter recognition for his efforts.
	The rising anger against Mugabe was expressed recently by the president of ZINASU—the Zimbabwe National Students Union. In a letter to Mugabe he writes:
	"ZINASU is disappointed by your conduct, lack of seriousness and urgency in the purported on-going SADC mediation process meant to resolve the current multi-faceted crisis our country finds itself in. Your attitude towards the initiative facilitated by the President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, leaves a lot to be desired, especially considering the fact that you proceeded to announce the election dates before the conclusion of the mediation process.
	We further put to you that the students of Zimbabwe will not accept an election outcome from a flawed election process. We strongly and unequivocally warn you and your cronies that the country will be ungovernable if you steal the people's vote".
	Mugabe clearly fears that the students mean business and are capable of becoming a focus for dissent. He has ordered all state-run universities and colleges to stay closed until after elections on 29 March.
	The Zimbabwean economy is in a state of collapse. The shops, including food shops, have bare shelves because of Mugabe's decree that all shops must reduce the price of goods by 50 per cent. The first people to get to the shops after that decree, before the shelves were empty, were the police and the military. Other people have had to scavenge for food in waste bins.
	What can be done? The mandate given to President Mbeki last March, at the urgently called conference of SADC heads of government in Tanzania, following a brutally disrupted prayer meeting, was simply to facilitate negotiation between ZANU-PF and the MDC. Before negotiations began instructions were given to the MDC by the police to avoid violence, even though the MDC is entirely peaceful. No such instructions were given to ZANU-PF.
	One of the most urgent things which must be done is to renew the European Union-targeted measures against 131 of Mugabe's cronies limiting their travel, which expire this month. I would be grateful for the Minister's assurance that they will be renewed on time. Last year there were signs of backsliding by some EU members, which were halted by urgent action. These travel restrictions have been exaggerated by Mugabe's constantly describing them as savage economic sanctions, when of course they are nothing of the kind. African Union and SADC leaders peddle the same line. It is not known from what source these falsehoods come—possibly somewhere not far removed from SADC headquarters—but they seem to be given credence by a number of the SADC leaders. I should be glad to know what Her Majesty's Government are doing to refute these lies. Mugabe is a formidable practitioner of spin, but we may now have an opportunity to take our revenge against him.
	Zimbabwe, like other SADC countries, is a signatory of the treaties for the African Union, SADC and NePAD. Those contain undertakings to observe human rights, good governance and the rule of law and to accept peer review. If Zimbabwe has not yet agreed to this last point it should be pressed by other SADC countries to do so. The promise was that these treaties were to be adhered to as part of a bargain with the developed world, which was the subject of a passionate speech by Tony Blair in 2001. The promise by the developed world was to increase the amount of aid, which has largely been done. I shall be glad to know also whether Her Majesty's Government have given thought to the implications of the substantial aid which is given to the SADC countries by the EU and by this country in particular. According to a Written Answer given to me on 10 October 2007, in col. WA 17, aid given by the United Kingdom in the year 2005 to the Southern African Development Community as a whole and to its member nations plus the UK's imputed share of multilateral aid to SADC member nations was over £750 million. That is a formidable figure.
	The issue of Zimbabwe was discussed in Addis Ababa at the meeting of SADC countries a few days ago, on the sidelines of the African Union summit. President Mbeki reported that Mugabe's intransigence, and his reneging on agreements made early in the talks, had moved the mediation process to deadlock and failure. Eight nations supported President Mbeki's call for censure but three—Swaziland, Namibia and Angola—backed Mugabe and, surprisingly to me, that was deemed an insufficient basis for a consensual decision. Will Her Majesty's Government reconsider grants of development aid to these three countries to bring home to them the implications for our aid budget of their policy of supporting Mugabe? The Department for International Development will undoubtedly wish to consider aid holistically to SADC. By prolonging the crisis in Zimbabwe, these countries are adding to the massive sums that will be required for reconstruction when ZANU-PF eventually goes and undermining the development of the region as a whole.

Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for his tenacity and determination in ensuring that the plight and suffering of the people of Zimbabwe continue to command the attention of your Lordships' House. We need an election in Zimbabwe but we do not need Mugabe as a candidate. Zimbabwe has gone through a number of stages; it has gone from bad to worse and now to disaster. It is no wonder that thousands have left the country. For the unfortunate ones who have stayed, the rewards are quite clear: the abuse of their human rights, the destruction of their democratic rights and processes, and, of course, the suppression of their liberties.
	As we have heard, the economy is not just on the verge of collapse but, as many would say, has collapsed. Seventy per cent are now unemployed; inflation figures are no longer believable. One in five is now living with HIV/AIDS and more than 1 million children have been orphaned and made vulnerable by the pandemic. One doctor described Zimbabwe in the following terms. He said:
	"Zimbabwe once offered the most comprehensive medical service in Africa, but it has now become a textbook of medical horror".
	Zimbabwe long ago lost most of its skilled people, the doctors, teachers, engineers and agricultural workers. Now all that it exports is its poverty.
	Our Government have until recently been somewhat diffident in speaking up and speaking out against Mugabe's vile regime, but the time has come for us to confront the myth that our colonial past is somehow responsible for the current misery—nothing could be further from the truth. To succeed in helping the people of Zimbabwe in their liberation struggle from Mugabe, we must take a proactive stance. I was proud that our Prime Minister declined to attend the EU-Africa summit in Lisbon because he did not wish to be in the same room as Mugabe. That was a good start. But if the Prime Minister does not want to be in the same room as Mugabe, is it right to expect our sportsmen and women to be on the same field of play as representatives of that regime? John Howard, as Prime Minister of Australia, gave a clear lead. He said that Australian cricketers would not play against Zimbabwe. If that is good enough for Australia, it should be good enough for the United Kingdom.
	A sporting, cultural and economic boycott would hasten the collapse of the regime and relieve the suffering of the people. We must give that lead. The Commonwealth, Europe and the United States would follow. I see the collapse of the regime not as an "if" but as a "when". We should pause and reflect on how best we can help the people in order that we can ensure their liberation. During the apartheid regime in South Africa, Governments in many parts of the world trained and prepared members of the black population for leadership in that country, to enable them to make the transition from prison to power seamlessly and without violence. I therefore ask the Minister: what preparation is being made in that respect and more generally to help the people of Zimbabwe when that time comes? Protestation and whingeing is not enough. We must back our words with action and the time is now.

Lord Alderdice: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, has shown a consistent commitment to the welfare of the people of Zimbabwe and all of us who share that concern are grateful to the noble Lord for having obtained this debate at such an apposite time, in the run-up to elections in Zimbabwe. Sadly, if the experience of Zimbabwe under Mr Mugabe in the past, or Kenya under Mr Kibaki in the present, are anything to go by, we can expect not only a rigged election, but violence afterwards.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has already said, there is already a profound humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. With an unprecedented convergence of AIDS, poverty and malnutrition, and some 3,500 people dying every week, Zimbabwe now has the lowest life expectancy in the region. If loss of life, as well as historic relationships and responsibility, are important criteria in determining the rankings on the United Kingdom's foreign policy agenda, Zimbabwe certainly deserves to be higher up. There is now a critical shortage of basic foods. How are Her Majesty's Government and the European Union stepping up their efforts to meet the shortfall and to ensure that basic human needs are met in full to help create better conditions for the up-coming elections and for people's lives?
	Our South African friends have made an effort to obtain the conditions for a decent poll. However, President Mbeki has failed to move Mr Mugabe, who is flatly refusing to dismantle the structures that he has created over the past decade to manage elections and dictate the outcome. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, said, when President Mbeki took the issue back to an extraordinary summit of SADC in Addis Ababa, not only did Mr Mugabe refuse to implement the reforms agreed and required, but he was backed by a number of the other African leaders, which is most disappointing.
	As a result, these elections are simply not going to be free and fair by international standards. The opposition have no exposure in the state-controlled media, they cannot campaign freely and many activists are refugees in South Africa and elsewhere. The voters roll is completely distorted by years of manipulation and any fair control of the poll is going to be difficult—some would say impossible. The decision of the split opposition MDC to fight on a divided ticket is tragic. Whatever the short-term problems of agreement between Morgan Tsvangirai and Arthur Mutambara, the long-term consequences for the country are likely to be savage.
	Mr Mugabe and Zanu-PF are now so unpopular that I suppose an upset is just possible, but only if what happened in Kenya can be stopped. Prevention of a rigged election and count depends almost entirely on the presence of observer missions and the ability of local NGOs and the political parties to supervise the vote and the count and ensure that it is reported accurately and properly. How are HMG pressing African leaders to make that a possibility? I focus on African leaders because it is just not possible for this to be dealt with simply as an issue for Europe or European states. However, Her Majesty's Government should maintain their position that:
	"It will only recognise an outcome that reflects the will of the people and only in that context would stand ready to help the new government to get back onto its feet".
	On the other hand, if the election is, as we expect, rigged, there may be value in making it clear in advance that recognition of the new Government could be withheld. Certainly, we must find a way of doing more than simply wringing our hands.
	Now that the Mbeki initiative has failed, the UK Government along with other Governments need to engage in proactive multilateral diplomacy. Can we find a common position with South Africa, Botswana, Zambia and Mozambique? Does the Minister think that his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will go to South Africa to help build consensus that could bring about an end to the extreme suffering of so many millions of Zimbabweans?

Lord Sheikh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blaker for initiating this debate. What we have witnessed in Zimbabwe over the past few years has been absolutely horrific, and, while we can all rehearse the depressingly familiar statistics, we need to recognise that this is, first and foremost, a human tragedy. Effectively, the Government of Zimbabwe have declared war on their own people. The cruelty that has been inflicted under Mugabe's regime will take a long time to heal: and the hurt continues. Fifty-six per cent of the population in Zimbabwe lives on less than $1 dollar a day and around 80 per cent lives on less than $2 dollars a day. In economic terms, Mugabe has managed to transform one of Africa's most successful economies into a complete disaster. Inflation is rampant and some economists count the figure as above 11,000 per cent. There is a shortage of food and the basic necessities of life.
	Mugabe's hold on power appears strong. He continues to be declared the winner of elections, despite these being considered as seriously flawed by the opposition and foreign observers. In the 2005 elections, Zanu-PF won more than two-thirds of the votes in parliamentary elections said by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change to be fraudulent. But, as my noble friend Lord Blaker acknowledged in the Motion for this debate, the damage extends well beyond economics and politics. Around 3,000 people die in Zimbabwe every week of HIV/AIDS, with an estimated 1.8 million Zimbabweans infected with the disease. When some people stand up and proclaim the wonders of their assistance in tackling this human tragedy, they measure their contribution in terms of money spent. We should focus attention on the number of infections prevented and on the number of treatments, rather than the crude measurement of finance injected.
	To focus our minds, life expectancy has fallen below 35 years, and there are an estimated 1.3 million orphans. I am appalled that other African countries have not shown more leadership and initiative: their approach has been supine. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity in his response to this debate to update the House on the actions of the British High Commissioner in South Africa to ensure that Mugabe is placed under maximum pressure. I appreciate that the British Government have to overcome sensitivities, given our colonial history with Zimbabwe, but it must be possible to do more.
	Zimbabwe stands as testament to the truth that although the power, even of a good Government, to do good, is not infinite, the power of a bad one knows no limit. I hope that other African leaders will change course and live up to their responsibility for the disaster that keeps deteriorating in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has done his country no favours, and the sooner he is out of office the better. It is imperative that the country returns to true democracy, and that opposition leaders are respected and protected. Other African countries need to support this.
	In conclusion, it is not the removal of Mr Mugabe that is necessary; the country needs humanitarian aid, the building of institutions, the restoration of democracy on a proper basis, and considerable investment by foreign countries.

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for the opportunity for your Lordships' House once again to debate Zimbabwe, in which the church has a deep, abiding and ongoing interest. My diocese has companion links with three dioceses in Zimbabwe. Members of our parishes pay occasional visits there, and we encourage our link bishops, from time to time, to come here for consultations. One returned to Zimbabwe last week after such discussions. He gave us a first-hand account of the dire situation in his country and what the churches are doing to try to alleviate suffering.
	Given the scale of suffering in Zimbabwe, and the total collapse of the economy, it seems incomprehensible that it has been impossible for Her Majesty's Government to achieve more international support for their efforts to bring pressure to bear on the Mugabe Government. President Mugabe's apparent ability to act decisively on land reform has impressed many in Africa. We know that the short cuts taken to land reform through violent farm seizures were disastrous, involving the transfer of land to ZANU-PF supporters, regardless of their ability to farm, and often on the basis of cronyism. Agriculture has been devastated, which, along with poor harvests and drought, has turned the bread basket of Africa into an unproductive wasteland. With elections on the horizon and the knowledge of the political capital that President Mugabe has made from land reform, it is most important that the British Government re-emphasises their commitment to helping a legitimate Zimbabwean Government to achieve land reform that is equitable for all Zimbabwean citizens.
	In Zimbabwe, the place where the people most often go to keep their sense of identity is the local church. More than that, when there is little cause for economic or political hope, it is in the churches that people find the most essential human quality—hope for the future. I do not want to mislead noble Lords. Because the church is often the most extensive and deeply rooted community-based network, it also reflects the tensions and divisions of the world in which it is set. Recently in the diocese of Harare, there has been a tremendous battle for the soul of the church, with a close political ally of President Mugabe, Bishop Kononga, driving out clergy who oppose him. The province acted and removed him from office. On Sunday, a new bishop was installed, with more than 700 people worshipping with him at short notice. The good news is that this demonstrates how the brave people of Zimbabwe, given the opportunity, are more than ready to take responsibility for governance. What can happen at the heart of the church can happen at the heart of Government. Please, God, may it do so before too long.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as we have heard this evening, the world has stood by and watched the systematic destruction of a once great country. Whatever the merits of the policies pursued by Her Majesty's Government, the UN, the European Union, the Commonwealth and, indeed, the SADC states, they have all, without doubt, failed miserably. The country is broken, the majority of the people are utterly destitute, society has broken down and the rule of law has gone. This is entirely a man-made tragedy, the blame for which lies squarely with Robert Mugabe, his ZANU-PF henchmen, and those political leaders in the region who have appeased him.
	In my four minutes this evening, I wish to develop only one point. Previous debates have covered a lot of detail, and the House knows very well the depth of the tragedy in the country: the lack of water, the lack of electricity, the misery and the destruction of human rights. We know those bitter facts. We now need to look beyond the current regime. It will not last for that much longer. There are those with power and influence in the country who realise this. We now need to concentrate on what happens after Mugabe goes, as he inevitably will, in, one hopes, the not too distant future.
	The infrastructure is now in a terrible state, but it can be rebuilt with help from the developed world. Now is the time to start talking in concrete terms about this reconstruction process, by putting together a coalition of funders, including Governments, multilateral development and funding agencies, including the World Bank, and corporate—and even private—donors. With funding pledges on the table and a reconstruction plan standing by, the prospects for rebuilding the country, stabilising the economy, starting to tackle the desperate healthcare situation and restoring power become more tangible. The prospect of a successful transition from a disastrous dictatorship to a benevolent peaceful regime must be attractive to those with the potential to influence events from within the country.
	I am, perhaps, surprisingly optimistic about the prospects for Zimbabwe in the medium term. Many of the productive emigrants, including farmers, teachers and engineers, would come back and work with the brave people who have stayed in that country to rebuild it. Zimbabwe will get worse before it gets better, but hope may not be too far away. We can influence this process with a constructive contribution, as well as maintaining political pressure on Zimbabwe and its influential neighbour in the south, which surely has the key to accelerating this process.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, for his tenacity in giving us this opportunity, again, to debate the many challenges facing Zimbabwe. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, that the situation has gone from bad to worse to disastrous. Despite the heavy rains over the past month, most of the farms remain deserted, with very few new crops being grown, facing the inevitability of yet another year of starvation, this time even worse than last year. This will lead, inevitably, to an ever-larger number of Zimbabweans attempting to get across the border into South Africa.
	While I support all the measures that can be exerted by the international community to bring pressure to bear on Zimbabwe, I have always advocated that there need to be African solutions for African problems. To this end, while President Thabo Mbeki has had reasonable success as the SADC facilitator in his mediations with Mugabe and the MDC, these efforts, as has already been mentioned, have been aborted by President Mugabe calling a snap election for 29 March. This leaves no time for an agreement to be reached on the new constitution, or the repeal of the tough and very draconian security laws. There is unlikely to be any material change in Zimbabwe, as we all know, until there is a change in leadership. To this end, I certainly welcome the recent news that Simba Makoni will be standing against Mugabe in the presidential elections.
	Mugabe clearly saw the opportunity to call a snap election with the opposition MDC being totally disorganised and failing to form a unified front. While that is unlikely to happen, the hope is that Morgan Tsvangarai and Arthur Mutambara will make way for Simba Makoni's challenge for the presidency. Having the backing of Solomon Mujuru, the ex-head of the armed forces, and several other senior ZANU-PF leaders, should add weight to his campaign. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, I fear the backlash of Mugabe's support base against Simba Makoni.
	There is no doubt that Mugabe manipulated the ZANU-PF December congress to ensure that he was the only candidate standing on behalf of the party for the presidency, which was totally wrong. Whatever the outcome of the presidential election, should Mugabe win, the general view is that at the age of 84 he will seek to hand over power soon after being re-elected to his chosen successor. The fear of many Zimbabweans is that this will be Mr Mnangagwa.
	There have been many calls for South Africa to do more to put pressure to bear on there being a change in leadership in Zimbabwe. The recent move by Eskom to cut off the electricity supply to Zimbabwe due to electricity shortages in South Africa has shown the huge dependence that Zimbabwe has on South Africa. However, it is unlikely that South Africa will seek to take these measures intentionally to force political change in Zimbabwe. What is more interesting is whether President Mbeki's successor, who is likely to be Jacob Zuma, will take a stronger line on forcing changes in Zimbabwe. I believe that he would take a stronger line, but it is unlikely that he will come to power before the middle of next year, and that depends on the outcome of the criminal case against him. It is anticipated that President Mbeki will elaborate on his strategy on Zimbabwe in his state of the nation speech this Friday.
	My time is almost up. I would have liked to speak on the alleged illegal extradition of Simon Mann to Equatorial Guinea; perhaps the Minister could comment on that. I would also have liked to elaborate on the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, as to what measures have been taken by the international community to offer some form of Marshall Aid package to promote change but, more importantly, expedite the reconstruction of the country once there has been a long-awaited change in leadership in Zimbabwe.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have been here before. In the past eight years we have had a number of debates on Zimbabwe. The only thing that has changed is that, although we never think the situation is going to get worse, by the subsequent debate it has become a great deal worse. That is the case today. Particularly in the past two weeks, there has been another rapid decline in the fortunes of Zimbabwe.
	What is sad about this is that, as my noble friend Lord Goschen said, the government policy on Africa is in tatters. Under the NePAD agreement, many African states have taken all the extra money we said that we would give them but they have given nothing back in increased civil rights, better protection for their citizens or democracy. That is a major failing. The situation, as we see it from this country, is not helped by the situation internationally. The EU is what I would term peely-wally with regard to Zimbabwe. The UN does not take much interest in it and there does not seem to be much agreement. China is sneaking in through the back door whenever it can to disrupt the situation and is planning its future in terms of all the mineral and other assets that Africa has.
	One unique and extraordinary thing about Zimbabwe is that despite the past eight years it has not resorted to violence. That is an amazing fact. If it had resorted to violence, perhaps something might have happened. The French are very quick to protect their interests in Chad, and Kofi Annan, former head of the UN, quickly went to sort out the situation in Kenya. Those countries are getting all the help that can possibly be given. The poor Zimbabweans have been the good guys in this and have not fought. The MDC has resisted every temptation and every encouragement to fight, and it has come worst off. It is a sad tale of human beings in the current world that the bad guys get the help and seem to come out better off than the good guys.
	Mugabe continues to run rings around Mbeki. I differ on this, as I always have, with the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso. Mugabe knew exactly what he was doing; he was running the talks with Mbeki to the last possible minute, knowing that if there was no agreement the MDC would split, making his rigging of the election that much easier. That is exactly what has happened. I give no credit at all to Mbeki. He should have stood up to the other African states and been much stronger with Mugabe right at the beginning. He should have said, "These are the terms. Come on, Robert, sign up. We have been old friends long enough". But he let it run right to the end and Mugabe ran circles round him.
	I cannot predict what is going to happen in the next month until the election. All one knows is that Mugabe is going to cause severe mayhem with all the opposition candidates, including Makoni. The postponement of the nomination panel gives him a very good chance, as he has a week to screen out all the Makoni supporters and make the election a safer bet. What will happen to poor Zimbabwe? Can the Minister tell us what plans there are for the future? If he is going to get a Marshall Aid package or something like that, what strings will be attached? We cannot afford to let Africa get away with another NePAD, where we give it money and it gives us nothing back in return. I am talking about "us" in the wider sense of the citizens of Africa and of the world. They should give us back democracy and civil rights.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister may reflect on the remarkable contrast between the huge international efforts made to resolve the crisis between the Government and the opposition in Kenya, which we debated earlier this afternoon, involving the UN, the AU and many states, and the puny attempt by President Thabo Mbeki on his own to ward off the far greater catastrophe that is engulfing the people of Zimbabwe, including endemic unilateral violence by the Government against anyone they think may be against them. That includes not only the official opposition but the 2.5 million shantytown dwellers in Operation Murambatsvina, and now university students and teachers. The plight of those people and of the 4.5 million people who flooded across the border, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, is in stark contrast, as it remains completely unremedied after the eight years of discussions that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, just mentioned. He may like to reflect on the statement that was attributed to an Irishman in the 19th century that, "Violence is the only way of securing a hearing for the voices of moderation".
	There was no mention of Zimbabwe at the AU summit which ended last Sunday. SADC got a report from Mr Mbeki in the margins, but it has said nothing about the reforms that will be necessary for even a partial approximation of free and fair elections on 29 March. The signs are ominous, with opposition rallies being prohibited, activists beaten up, and the police chief being given a grand new title and new car and making public threats against what he calls "those bent on exploiting the economic situation". We can expect to see violent attacks against candidates and supporters who campaign against the policies that are beggaring the nation while handing new privileges to the army, the police and the so-called war vets.
	It is a tragedy, as my noble friend Lord Alderdice said, that the two wings of the MDC failed to reach an agreement on joint presidential and parliamentary candidates, but with ZANU-PF and Mugabe universally hated by the people, there could still be a sporting chance that Mugabe could be defeated. There are splits within the ruling party, with Simba Makoni, the former finance Minister, deciding to contest the presidential election. Apart from him, there are several incumbent ZANU-PF Ministers and former MPs being sidelined in the selection of candidates. No one imagines that there will be a free and fair election, but if the presence of well-resourced observers over the next seven weeks could make a difference—and I believe that it could—what efforts are we making to see that observer teams are properly resourced and financed?
	Could we perhaps ask the SADC countries to sound out the Commonwealth about possible technical help that it might be able to give not only to the SADC observers but also against the possibility, as has been mentioned, that Zimbabwe will need substantial reconstruction after the election? The observer team might have something to contribute to that.
	The regime has said that it will relax the restrictions on foreign journalists, who can play a crucial part in monitoring conditions in the run-up period. I would like to mention the intrepid Sue Lloyd-Roberts, who last autumn got in to show people starving and disease rampant; and, just the other day, John Simpson, who exposed the divisions within ZANU-PF. The free media, particularly journalists from SADC countries, can do more than politicians to ensure that Zimbabwe does not wake on 30 March to a disputed result, with consequences that could be even more disastrous than the horrors we have seen in Kenya.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it is of course impossible in the few minutes available to me from this Dispatch Box to summarise or do justice to this excellent little debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Blaker for once again returning to the issue.
	Looking back on our endless debates on this subject, I find that we were told again and again that quiet diplomacy was the best course and would work. I gather that the Minister has just been touring parts of Africa, and I hope that he found out for himself what some of us have long argued. While we obviously could play no direct and confrontational part in the unfolding Zimbabwean tragedy, we could and should have been much tougher from the start on sanctions against individuals, companies and interests that were enriching themselves while supporting the regime, and on doubters at the UN who persistently blocked attempts to bring the horrors of Zimbabwe to the Security Council. We could and should have pressed Mr Mbeki and South Africa to be more robust and creative. We could and should have urged China sooner to stop sending aid and succour to Mugabe—as my right honourable friend David Cameron has now rightly done. This is not the fault of the present Minister, as he was not in place, but the Government did not do any of those things. Instead we were constantly and repeatedly told that quiet diplomacy would do the trick.
	Now where have we got to? We have inflation touching anything between 13,000 and 100,000 per cent—somewhere between the two. We have unemployment at 80 per cent, a quarter of the population relying on food aid, refugees streaming over the borders and the rule of law collapsing. To repeat the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso: it would be interesting to know about British subject Simon Mann and why all his legal rights seem to have been ignored in his illegal extradition to Equatorial Guinea.
	This is a disastrous scene in which, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown—I think that I have them right—we have an aid and development policy in Africa but not a foreign policy. That has been the trouble. When one looks at the huge imbalances between the resources available to DfID and those available to diplomacy and the Foreign Office, it is only too obvious what has happened. In the new Comprehensive Spending Review up to 2011, the FCO gets a 0.2 per cent reduction each year, and DfID—which already has a budget four times larger—gets an 11 per cent increase. This is a dangerous imbalance. Instead of having a foreign policy alongside our aid policy, we have been left to drift along with spineless international policy on Zimbabwe and, just somehow, to hope for miracles.
	Maybe a few small miracles could be about to happen, but I do not know. We have heard about Simba Makoni, who has had the enormous courage to emerge to challenge Mugabe in the elections. We know that the Government are now being forced to take back farms that were parcelled out to cronies and officials because they have produced nothing, and that they will now be put in more competent managerial hands. While the MDC opposition is sadly split, so now is ZANU-PF, and that must be good.
	What more can we do now, on top of the long list of things that we have urged should have happened but have not? I believe that the Commonwealth could play a forward role, even if Zimbabwe is not at the moment a member. I would like to see a Commonwealth working committee drawn from both African and other member state personnel to explore real land reform options, to encourage donors to re-engage and to plan an effective recovery strategy post Mugabe in that once rich country. I am sure that point has not yet been reached, and maybe things are going to get worse before they get better. We can only pray that, when it comes, there will be recovery and prosperity. Again, it ought to prosper and it ought to be free—and it is not.

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, let me echo the noble Lord's last words. We can indeed pray for that outcome and I hope we will achieve it. I join all those who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, on having tabled this debate on Zimbabwe. We all respect his continued commitment to raising the crisis in Zimbabwe at every possible opportunity. He has shown himself a real friend of the people of Zimbabwe if not of its president.
	We all support the view that our primary focus must be on helping ordinary Zimbabweans. The UK is the second largest bilateral donor, giving £45 million in the current year and some £173 million since 2000. As we have frequently reassured this House, this aid is distributed via third parties—the UN and NGOs—and not via the Government. As many noble Lords said, the indications, on every indicator, are that the country faces worse times ahead. The harvest will be poor. We are spending £10 million a year tackling the HIV/AIDS crisis. As the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, said, that does not do justice to the fact that this money is not achieving the results we would wish. Life expectancy is now a catastrophic 35 years.
	We continue to spend money to support democratic change, supporting civil society as well as lawyers to try and improve the climate for free and fair elections. We have ensured that EU-targeted measures are in place to punish President Mugabe and the elite and not the ordinary people of Zimbabwe. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that we are confident that those targeted measures will be renewed again later this month.
	We speak regularly with other countries in the region, in particular South Africa and other SADC countries, to encourage them to resolve the crisis. But I take the point about quiet diplomacy. I myself met with the South African Foreign Minister at the end of last week, in the margins of the AU summit. We also have word of the briefings that the South Africans made to the other SADC member states. I am not quite as well informed as the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, on how the countries are divided on the issue, but we are seeing a disappointing failure of the neighbours to stand up for the kind of change that we must see in Zimbabwe.
	I do not agree that withholding aid from other SADC members is the way to achieve change there. Angola, which the noble Lord mentioned, is an oil-rich country that is in no way dependent on aid and with its own strong point of view on these issues. SADC contains a number of countries whose development and performance of democracy and respect for it is admirable in its own right. We just wish that they would be as vigorous in applying the same standards to their neighbour Zimbabwe as they are brave enough to apply them at home.
	President Mbeki's efforts to mediate have essentially now expired. The election has been declared by President Mugabe and he has not accepted the MDC's demands for delays. By so doing he has negated the few conditions that had been negotiated, all of which depended on time for implementation to allow for a freer and fairer election.
	President Mugabe has stated that there will be no amendment to the constitution until after the elections. One must therefore assume that the conditions for genuinely free and fair elections remain far away. The electoral roll is incomplete and inaccurate. It seems that millions of those outside the country have no prospect of being able to vote. The many new constituency boundaries introduced under the negotiations have been introduced in a rush and essentially amount to gerrymandering, favouring ZANU-PF. To this day, the opposition is unable to hold rallies freely or complain without harassment and is not being given equal access to the media. The military and the police continue to crawl all over the election management process.
	On the point about international election observers, it is very unlikely that credible international teams will be allowed to monitor the elections. I therefore use this debate in the House tonight to appeal to the SADC Heads of State and Government who have established very good principles of electoral conduct for their sub-region to insist that those principles be applied in Zimbabwe, and to be the first to declare that they have not been met if indeed they are not met.
	I turn to the issue of cricket, raised by my noble friend Lord Morris. There are no sporting sanctions on Zimbabwe, but the Foreign Secretary and others in this Government have made it clear that we do not encourage the England and Wales Cricket Board to allow Zimbabwe to tour England in 2009 or England to tour Zimbabwe in 2012 if the situation in the country is as it is now. We continue to speak to the ECB about these issues but it remains a decision for the board. We have decided that the Government can make their position clear, but that it is not for us to intervene directly in this matter.
	I shall say a word about Simon Mann. Before his appeals process had exhausted itself, and therefore completely in contravention of Zimbabwe's own legal standards and system, he was removed from the country and sent to Equatorial Guinea. We have sought consular access to him there without success to this point. We are pressing both there and here in London for Simon Mann's rights to be met. We are extremely concerned about the situation given the history of what has happened to prisoners before in that country. We shall certainly press fully for Mr Mann to enjoy his full legal rights.
	A number of noble Lords including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark raised questions on the future situation in Zimbabwe. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place that we stand ready to assist in the economic recovery of Zimbabwe once our benchmarks for change in that country have been met; once there is a Government who are genuinely committed to economic and political reform and to the restoration of the rights of its citizens; and once there is a Government who enjoy the support of their people. At that point Britain will be generous in its support to economic recovery. I can assure noble Lords that we are already preparing for that day. We have been working with international institutions such as the World Bank, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, inquired. We are looking at the cost of recovery. We are planning for it and talking to international partners. I agree entirely that recovery must deal with the issue of land, which remains at the heart of so much of the dispute in that unhappy country.
	I share the views of those who contrasted the international attention given to Kenya and that given to Zimbabwe. I hope it does not prove the point that several noble Lords made, that the international community will be stirred into action only if there is violence. We all devoutly hope that that will not happen in Zimbabwe, although we all also recognise that a very high level of state violence is already being applied to the citizens of that country.
	Zimbabwe is the guilty secret of Africa and the international community. There is a terrible double standard. There has been a failure to point the finger publicly and to declare what a terrible crime is occurring against the citizens of that country. We hope that this election will enable those who run against President Mugabe to champion that point of view. We wish them all the best in the election. To go any further than that would be to undermine their own standing. Even these words will be passed on by President Mugabe and his propaganda sidekicks in an attempt to suggest that one or other or all three of them are British stooges and the British candidates to replace him.
	We hope, as others have said, that there is a glimmer of hope; that, even in a snap election conducted under impossibly unfair conditions, with all the levers, advantages and cards in hands of government, God and good fortune will smile on that unhappy country, and that perhaps out of these elections will emerge a surprising electoral upset. In order to try to ensure the possibility of such an outcome we will insist—and impress on Europe, the region, the UN and the rest of the international community the need to insist—that the right standards of freeness and openness are met in that election to allow the country to return to democracy and prosperity. Zimbabwe has the world's highest inflation rate, lowest life expectancy and, as has been pointed out, an ever-growing number of HIV/AIDS orphans. It is clear to everyone that the solution to this crisis cannot come soon enough.
	We still believe that that solution must first and foremost be an African solution supported by the region and the wider international community. We will continue to explore and support all efforts to deliver that solution. In the mean time, to ease the suffering of Zimbabweans at the hands of their leadership, we will continue to provide crucial humanitarian assistance to ordinary Zimbabweans, to try to ease their suffering amidst all the pain and pressures they endure in their everyday lives.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. It has been a particularly good one.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: Forgive me, my Lords, but the noble Lord who initiates a Question for Short Debate is not allowed to respond.

Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill

House again in Committee on Clause 9.

Lord Kingsland: moved Amendment No. 68:
	Clause 9, page 7, line 22, after "of" insert "financial compensation or other appropriate"

Lord Kingsland: After the wide-ranging debate on the previous group of amendments, I might well be accused of condescending to the particular in this amendment. Indeed, it is an amendment about a particular and clear matter.
	Financial compensation orders are not often used by the courts. Why is that so? There are some links here to reparation orders. Financial compensation orders could be an effective way of impressing on offenders the significance of their crime—to take just one example, crimes associated with vandalism. The reality is that the number of financial compensation orders made in youth courts is extremely limited. Offenders who commit property or shop-lifting crime often do not accept that there are any victims. Here is an opportunity to change that. Obviously, a financial compensation order would have to be tailored to the offender and take into account his circumstances. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I thought that it was an interesting amendment, and I have a great deal of sympathy with the reasons for proposing it. I am clear that young people who have offended should be held responsible for their actions and that proper reparation, including financial compensation, should be an important feature of making young people accountable for their actions.
	We do not think that there is a specific need for the noble Lord's amendment for a number of reasons. Reparation is a key theme within the current framework of the youth justice system, which is why it should be included as a purpose of sentencing for the court to consider. The court can sentence a young person to a specific reparation order, which will remain a separate sentence beneath a youth rehabilitation order. A reparation order focuses on reinforcing personal responsibility and on learning the consequence of the damage the offender has caused both to the individual and the community. It may cover a variety of activities from simply writing a letter of apology to carrying out work to assist the local community.
	I took part in such a community payback programme in relation to a scout hut in Northolt some months ago and met a number of young people who were required to take part. I must say that I found it useful. It is interesting that through such schemes and their contribution, some of the young people have found skills and work. They also contributed to renovating a much-needed community asset, when it would have been difficult to find the resources to do it.
	There are many other marvellous examples to which we must pay tribute. As we discussed yesterday, I thought that reparation must be an element within the youth rehabilitation order itself. Reparation activities can be used in some of the requirements and as unpaid work.
	In terms of the legislation, we believe that courts already have the power to order any offender to pay compensation under existing legislation. Section 130 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 provides for that power. A compensation order awarded by the court in favour of the victim is the primary sentence of the court, like a fine. Its main purpose is to punish the offender, not necessarily to compensate the victim fully.
	I noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that it is all very well there being a provision but it does not seem to be used often. I have some sympathy with that, although no doubt he would acknowledge the benefit of the courts' discretion in these matters, as he has pointed out to us. The problem is probably that the courts take the view that it would not serve a useful purpose to award an amount and require payment at a level that the offender had no hope of repaying within the foreseeable future, which might merely tempt him or her to commit further crime.
	That may be the reason, but as I have said, my figures for 2005-06 show that 15,492 compensation orders were given to young offenders. Clearly the power is used to a certain extent, but I am happy to take away the provision to see whether anything more could be done to encourage more use of the order in the future.

Lord Kingsland: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I could not have asked for a more constructive response to my amendment. In those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 not moved.]
	Clause 9 agreed to.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: moved Amendment No. 71:
	After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
	"Restrictions on custodial sentences for offenders aged under 18
	(1) This section applies where a person under the age of 18 years is convicted of an offence punishable with a custodial sentence other than one—
	(a) fixed by law, or(b) failing to be imposed under section 51A(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 (c. 27) (minimum sentence for certain offences under s.5) or under sections 226 to 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44).
	(2) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
	(3) In the title of section 152 (general restrictions on imposing discretionary custodial sentences), after "general restrictions on imposing discretionary custodial sentences" insert "on offenders aged 18 or above".
	(4) In section 152(1), after "where a person" insert "aged 18 or above".
	(5) After section 152 insert—
	"152A Restrictions on custodial sentences for offenders aged under 18
	(1) A court shall only pass a sentence of custody on a person under the age of 18 as a measure of last resort and where—
	(a) the offence committed caused or could reasonably have been expected to cause serious physical or psychological harm to another or others; and(b) a custodial sentence is necessary to protect the public from a demonstrable and imminent risk of serious physical or psychological harm.
	(2) The court shall state in open session its reasons for passing any sentence of custody under this section.""

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: Despite the Government's protestations that custody should indeed be the disposal of last resort and for the shortest possible time, as is laid down in international human rights law, the fact remains, as we have now said over and over again, that the number of children in custody has steadily risen over the Government's lifetime. One hopes that when one says these things over and over that the content of the meaning does not get diluted. It is just a serious fact.
	It is accepted in theory that because they are children, those who break the law must be treated differently from adults, as we have already been saying at great length today. All those institutions and structures devised to deal with them must take that into account. However, the JCHR in scrutinising the provision in the Criminal Justice Act took the view that the restriction on the use of custody is a general one applying to all offenders rather than specifically ensuring that it is genuinely used as a last resort where children are concerned.
	The reason for this amendment is to introduce a more specific safeguard and to create a statutory custody threshold that will act as a barrier to the downward use of custody for lesser offences and be clearly for public protection, except of course where mandatory custodial sentences apply. For the awful truth is that while the crime rate overall is dropping, the numbers of children in custody is rising.
	We have rehearsed so often in this House the statistics relating to children that show that on virtually every measure they are the most deprived and damaged in our society. When we add to that the fact that the reoffending rate is the highest of any group and the subsequent life chances are the lowest, it seems clear that we are all losers in the exercise. It is neither logical nor justifiable in any of the outcomes.
	Further, we could just remember that six children have died in custody in the past five years. However, there is evidence that a custody threshold was successful in bringing down the custody figures when it was tried 25 years ago. It resulted in a 54 per cent decrease over a decade on the under-21s given custody for an indictable offence until it was repealed in 1991. Since it cost the YJB £280 million in the year ending March 2007, just think of the possibilities for greater investment, rehabilitation, prevention and restorative alternatives.
	The current threshold under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is too vague, but Section 1(4) of the 1982 Act provided that the courts must not pass the sentence of custody on a person under 21 unless they were,
	"of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate because it appears to the court that he is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial penalties or because a custodial sentence is necessary for the protection of the public or because the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified".
	I recommend most urgently to the Minister that we follow that excellent precedent and reintroduce such a threshold again. I beg to move.

[Amendment No. 72, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Judd: moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, Amendment No. 73:
	After Clause 9, line 3, leave out "18" and insert "21"

Lord Judd: All of us in the Committee should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for the wide scope of things she brings to these debates—her experience is pretty unrivalled—but particularly for having tabled Amendment No. 71. She referred to the unacceptably large number of young people being incarcerated in one way or another. With that statistic goes the reality that the facts speak for themselves: it is not a successful process. The rate of reoffending remains deeply disturbing. Even if there were no other grounds, any sane society would say that we had better look at this because what we are doing is obviously not effective.
	The noble Baroness has put the case very well. On the amendments immediately following, we shall touch on the danger to children in custody as well. I therefore applaud Amendment No. 71 and plead with my noble friend the Minister to take it seriously. The purpose of my amendment is simply to say that I am at least as concerned about the 18 to 21 year-old age group. This was brought home to me in the context of the YMCA's work in young offender institutions, prisons and the rest. That age group is in many ways a particularly vulnerable section of the population, because it is so easy for staff and others to regard them as adults and they are not. Just think of our own children—as I wish we would more often in this situation—and how dependent they are. They may not want to admit it, but they are terribly dependent and reliant. We must therefore be particularly careful about consigning anyone in that age group to custody unless—as we shall come to on later amendments—we are certain about the form of custody into which we are putting them. My amendments are therefore in a spirit of welcoming the amendment of the noble Baroness, but propose that it should be extended to cover this other age group as well.

Lord Ramsbotham: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, with his usual prescience, has raised this threshold to 21. It brings to mind the fact that, in the custodial system as it is, there are people aged under 18 in the hands of the Prison Service, and then those aged 18 to 21 of whom there many more, but they are marginalised. They are marginalised because nobody is responsible for looking after them; they are not regarded as adults, they are not regarded as children and nothing is done for them.
	That group probably needs our help more than any other which we are not helping. Its members are on the threshold of adulthood; it is the last chance saloon, if you like. Therefore, while we are dealing with children and all the special things that happen, we ought to bear in mind that some establishments known as "split sites" have both groups. If you visit them, you will find that the younger group has facilities like education and work, and the 18-21 year-olds have not because the facilities have been milked to provide them for the juveniles for whom the Prison Service is under contract from the Youth Justice Board.
	It has been said that this group of young offenders should go up to the age of 25. That is another debate and another aspect that needs to be considered, but bearing in mind that, as I shall be raising in another amendment, it is now possible for people to remain in care until the age of 21 and remembering the immaturity of some of these people who need all the help that they can get, it is right that the restrictions on custody that the noble Baroness has so rightly raised should apply to the age range raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

Lord Judd: Does the noble Lord agree that the statistic which, to be candid, I gave to the House in the context of an Oral Question this afternoon makes his point very clearly? While it is true that since 1990 30 children have died in custody—that is a disturbing enough statistic—during the same period 201 people aged 18 to 20 have died in custody, including 178 self-inflicted deaths and five homicides. We somehow as a society just say, "Oh well, those are the statistics". Think of the human tragedy that every case represents and the appalling situation for families, relatives and others. For all those reasons, we cannot overemphasise the importance of the noble Baroness's amendment. I am very glad to see that she seems to be indicating that she has no difficulty with our proposition that it should be extended to cover the 18 to 21 age group.

Lord Ramsbotham: I accept that. The noble Lord's figures emphasise once again the importance of looking at all aspects of this—from suspicion to arrest, through every trial, through custody and whatever—holistically with the same thing in mind and not as single issues.

The Earl of Listowel: I strongly support the amendment. I shall not repeat what I have already said about this matter, but shall take this opportunity to welcome strongly the measures in the first part of the Bill to provide proper community sanctions so that children can be kept out of custody more than they have been in the past. I note what the Minister said about a static period, but can he say a bit more about the trend? I understand there was a rising trend, then a static period and then it began to rise again more recently. Has that rise now settled?
	There are a number of points to make about this. I think I am correct in saying that there has not been a death in a local authority secure unit. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. If one can reduce the population within the custodial centre, one can concentrate on quality. One could make centres local and concentrate on having the best training and support for staff and really use custody effectively. Currently, there is overcrowding, so there is a high level of churn. That means it is difficult to establish relationships between the young people and the custody officers, which means that a heavy use of force is needed to keep them under control. Again and again I hear from people working in these places that relationships are crucial to managing behaviour, but they cannot be established. We now have a call from the Prison Officers' Association for prison officers to be allowed to carry batons in these settings.
	There are so many good reasons to wish to move in this direction. Before I finish, I want to emphasise the huge cost to the public of locking up all these children. How much better that money might be spent on the community sanctions that the noble Lord is proposing. I hope that the Minister can give a sympathetic reply to the amendment.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I will be brief but I have no hesitation in backing both the amendment and the amended amendment. This group of children, particularly in today's world of overcrowded prisons—which, let us face it, it is going to take some time to sort out—is the most vulnerable group. The more we can do to help them the better, by not only encouraging but laying a duty on local authorities and others to see them through into, we hope, a better world with backup and resources provided to help them get into jobs or training. The numbers who take their own lives or self-harm are quite appalling. I would like to ask whether there are any figures for men and women on this but one knows that there are very vulnerable women in these circumstances. The Corston report has made that clear to us. But I certainly back these amendments.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I view these amendments with sympathy but not with total acceptance and I would like to say why. In the last couple of days it has become almost a truism to say that there is very little expectation of a successful result from an order of custody imposed upon anybody under the age of 18. I am much in sympathy with what the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Ramsbotham, have said about the special circumstances that affect the under-21s. Over the years we have legislated to provide that custody for a young person shall only be a last resort. From that it follows that Parliament has regarded it as a resort, albeit a last one and therefore one very sparingly turned to. My anxiety about these amendments is that it is to impose a dangerously narrow restriction on what may be regarded as a last resort to say that,
	"the offence ... could reasonably have been expected to cause serious physical or psychological harm to another or others",
	and that,
	"a custodial sentence is necessary to protect the public from a demonstrable and imminent risk of serious physical or psychological harm".
	I think that could be found to be dangerously and impracticably narrow. I would be interested in the noble Baroness's comment on this point and the Government's response to it. There may be a case for a restriction on what can be regarded as a last resort but as at present advised I think this is unduly narrow.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: To a large extent I support both sets of amendments. I particularly support the amendment that raises the age from 18 to 21 for that very vulnerable group of children. I also share the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that there should be a restriction but that this is too narrow. One should be thinking a little more broadly for the protection of the public because the public will not understand if between the ages of 18 and 21 we are treating them exactly the same as children. But even with children one has to be a little careful that this is not too restrictive. I totally agree with the concept but some wording to make it slightly broader would be better than the present.

Baroness Falkner of Margravine: I will not speak about the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, on raising the age of the custody threshold to 21; I will speak only to those which have my name against them. Anticipating perhaps what the Government's resistance to this might be, I would argue that one of the problems here is the definition of "so serious". Section 152(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 requires that:
	"The court must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that the offence ... was so serious".
	The problem is that the threshold and the meaning of "so serious" is too vague. That definition necessarily will relate to a person's age and circumstances, and, dare I say, emotional and intellectual development, on which we have had such a robust debate earlier.
	I direct the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to international comparisons, which were articulated so clearly yesterday in the opening speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, on the principles. In this country, we cannot have children who are more feral, who are worse, than comparable children elsewhere—at least in comparable economies, GDPs and populations.
	When we talk about the situation in this country we seem to believe that something is particularly wrong with us here—I call it British exceptionalism—which is an admission of defeat. International comparisons clearly show that custody thresholds apply and are successful elsewhere. I shall not answer those questions directly—I shall leave that to my noble friend Lady Linklater—but I make that observation. We know that custody does not rehabilitate the vast majority of children; three-quarters of them reoffend within a year.
	The amendment would enable interventions to be improved. It perhaps is a little too narrow and perhaps we need to think again about whether we can make it more practically applicable. But it would provide interventions for those who need to be locked up for genuine reasons of public protection and would enable the reallocation of resources for more suitable and effective community work. We know that community programmes are not adequately funded. About 70 per cent—£280 million—of the Youth Justice Board's programmes budget is spent each year on locking up—I know that the Minister is sensitive about those words—children.

Lord Kingsland: We are most sympathetic to the animating theme which lies behind these amendments, although we have one or two hesitations about particular aspects of the detail.
	As I think that we have all said in the past two days, custody is known to be one of the least effective and most harmful of criminal justice disposals for children, with eight out of 10 reoffending within two years of release. I note that the Minister in another place, David Hanson, did not object to the concept of custody thresholds, which is not surprising. The Youth Justice Board's publication, entitled, Strategy for the Secure Estate for Children and Young People, of November 2004, said:
	"The YJB expects legislative changes that are due soon to bring greater clarity for courts about the [children's] custody threshold".
	As Members of the Committee are well aware, YJB policy documents are cleared by Ministers and thus, effectively, become government policy.
	The aim of a custody threshold for children should be to ensure that children are only ever locked up as a last resort, principally for public protection. Moreover, a reduction in the number of children in custody would release considerable resources for improved prevention and rehabilitation where it can be most effective, as noted by the Audit Commission, the Public Accounts Committee and many other official bodies.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may refer to a few of the questions that were raised before I come on to the Government's view of the specific issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, referred to the downward use of custodial sentencing, which I think is the equivalent of my up-sentencing. We understand what we mean. I just want to stress that this is not the aim. This is about ensuring custody is indeed the last resort. That is why, in the earlier part of the Bill, so much emphasis is put on the YROs. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred once again to the very important question of restraint. As I said earlier this afternoon—it seems many hours ago now—the review that has been commissioned is due to report in April. I hope that will inform the development of a sensible and helpful policy. We will have to see what the review says.
	The noble Earl also asked about deaths in custody. I am very happy to circulate the details that I have. I cannot answer the question, raised I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, about women. I will try to find that information. We have another happy debate only a few hours ahead in relation to the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and I have no doubt that that is one of the matters that we will discuss. On the noble Earl's specific question, every death is a personal tragedy. My understanding is there was one death at Hillside SCH in 1998. I will let him have details of that of course.
	I also want to provide the figures on young people in custody and the question of whether we are in a stable position. My understanding is that on 30 June 1997, there were 2,479 under-18s in custody. In October 2002 it had gone up to 2,735. The figure for June 2007, which is the latest I have, is 2,426. It is on that basis that I used the word stabilisation earlier. The YJB disposal data published for 2006-07 show that total disposals in that year were 216,000: pre-court were just over 96,000; first tier 73,000; community 39,700 and custody 7,097. The difference is that the figures I gave earlier were the number of people in custody at one point, whereas the latter figures are about the number of disposals during the calendar year. Noble Lords will interpret those figures, but it does put this into perspective.
	I will also comment on another interesting question the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has raised about the 1982 Act. There was undoubtedly a significant drop in the use of immediate custody between those years for indictable offences for under-21s. This coincided with a corresponding increase in repeat cautioning for offenders, particularly the group aged 17 to 21. For instance, the number of males cautioned for an indictable offence in 1980 was 3,200 and that had risen to 22,500 by 1990. My understanding is that repeat cautioning for indictable offences was deemed not acceptable by the then Government which was why they reversed the position. That is the background to some of the very interesting questions—

The Earl of Listowel: Do the figures include the number of children on remand?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Which figures are those?

The Earl of Listowel: Those given for children in custody over time.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My assumption is yes, but I will double-check to make sure and let the noble Earl know.
	Let me turn to the question in hand. Although we understand what noble Lords are getting at, we think—as has been hinted at already—that the amendments would set an entry point for custody so high that it could present a real risk to the public. Amendment No. 71 would mean that a young person could be sent to custody only where the offence caused or could have caused serious physical or psychological harm and where it is necessary,
	"to protect the public from a demonstrable and imminent risk"
	of such harm. The proposal could apply to some of the most serious offences, such as manslaughter, rape and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
	There are provisions to deal with young offenders who are classified as dangerous in Sections 226 and 228 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This involves an assessment of whether the offender has committed an offence listed in Schedule 15 to that Act and whether they pose a significant risk of serious harm to members of the public. If someone commits one of the serious offences I have mentioned they will not be automatically assessed as dangerous. Most young offenders who commit such offences are given a sentence under Section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.
	The provisions in Section 152 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 apply at present to offenders who have committed one of the most serious offences but are not classified by the courts as dangerous. The amendment would mean that even when the most serious type of harm had been caused and if it could be proved that the young offender had deliberately caused grievous bodily harm with the intent to cause such harm, the court could not impose a custodial sentence unless the prosecution could also prove that, looking forward, it was necessary to protect the public from a demonstrable and imminent risk of serious physical or mental harm. Only then would custody be an option.
	There is a risk that if we accepted the amendment, notwithstanding that the prosecution could prove all the elements of the offence, the courts could not impose custody unless the prosecution could also show that there was a demonstrable and imminent risk of serious physical and mental harm. Such an offender would not necessarily meet the criterion of dangerousness in the amendment.
	We think that there is a risk that the custody threshold could be raised in a way that prevents the courts protecting the public from young people who have committed serious and violent crimes.
	I was very interested in the debate about 18 to 21 year-olds. I remind the Committee that in May last year, the then Minister at the Home Office made a Statement about young adult offenders. He said that,
	"we are firmly committed to further work to ensure we plan for appropriate provision to address the specific needs of 18 to 24-year olds. We will progress a suite of proposals to enable us to test the best approaches both in custody and in the community by ... piloting a specification for a new regime for this age group as an integral part of the new prison capacity building arrangements".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/07; col. 7WS.]
	Although I have some reservations about the amendment, I assure noble Lords that we accept the challenge presented by this age group.
	I have been alerted to an error that I made in some of the figures that I gave, for which I apologise. The figures that I gave as a snapshot of the offender population were for young offender institutions only. I shall give the overall figure for the young offender population: in June 2007, it was 2,928; in June 2006, it was 2,925. I offer to circulate to all noble Lords the full figures so that when we debate the matter again on Report we are all clear about what we are talking about.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I am grateful for all the contributions. We know simply that the young offender population has teetered around an unacceptable 3,000 for several years. I am grateful particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for his amendment to my amendment. He was right that nobody knows better than the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, just how even more deprived are these prisoners and how they can deceive us by looking so big, tough, frightening and dangerous. We have only to look at the figures. Well, we looked at the figures for suicides. We looked also at the figures for self-harming, to which nobody has referred today, and which are the biggest and loudest cry for help. It is in this age group that it is the most frightening.
	In response to the reservations that have been expressed, I say that the proposed new clause at least offers a strategy for trying to put a lid on what is already such an unacceptably high figure. It might help the Government to focus on this if I said to them that the Ministry of Justice's figures for December 2007 show that the vast majority—78 per cent—of the 5,291 children aged 15 to 17 who were sentenced to imprisonment in 2006 was not convicted of sexually related offences or violence against the person. They were not those most serious offenders. In other words, this down-tariffing or scooping-up of younger children into custody is one of things that we must find strategies to counteract.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We discussed this matter yesterday. One of the problems is the way in which some of the offences are classified. I think that I undertook yesterday—and if I did not, I do so tonight—to provide noble Lords with further information about that.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I thank the Minister for that. One can nitpick over these things. I suppose that my general argument remains the same: too many children are going in for offences that are relatively too minor.
	I was interested in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about the narrowing effect of the amendment. Evidence shows that when we had a threshold, it was very successful and brought down custody by nearly half. That is an important experience that we should not ignore.
	I appreciate the general support of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I hope that the Minister will perhaps look once again at the proposal. It is not an issue that we will let go. We look forward to returning to it later. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Boston of Faversham: Before I put that request to the Committee, I have to deal with Amendment No. 73. Perhaps I may invite the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to indicate his intentions with regard to Amendment No. 73.

Lord Judd: Amendment No. 72 was withdrawn from the Marshalled List for a technical reason: it was inadvertently tabled before we realised that you cannot in fact amend the title of a clause. That is what I was led to understand and that is why I withdrew the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I may assist the Committee. The order of withdrawal has to be something like this: Amendment No. 73 has to be withdrawn, Amendment No. 72 already having been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. The Deputy Chairman puts it to the Committee that Amendment No. 73 is withdrawn; the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, then has the right of reply to Amendment No. 71. At that point, she will probably seek to withdraw her amendment, and the Deputy Chairman then puts that to the Committee.

Lord Judd: If it helps the Committee, I am pleased at this juncture to say that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the amendment.

Amendment No. 73, as an amendment to Amendment No. 71, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 74 to 77, as amendments to Amendment No. 71, not moved.]

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 71.

Amendment No. 71, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Judd: moved Amendment No. 78:
	After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
	"Secure accommodation for children and young persons convicted of a criminal offence
	(1) After section 89 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6) insert—
	"89A Detention orders
	(1) This section applies where a child or young person (under 21 years of age) is convicted of a criminal offence and a court makes an order that that child or young person should be detained.
	(2) A local authority must provide suitable premises in which that child or young person can be securely accommodated and appropriate care and support provided.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the provision of suitable premises under subsection (2)."
	(2) In section 27(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (c. 58) (remand of persons aged 17 to 20) omit the words—
	(a) ", if the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that a remand centre is available for the reception from the court of persons of his class or description, ", and(b) "and, if it has not been so notified, it shall commit him to a prison."
	(3) In section 43(2) of the Prisons Act 1952 (c. 52) (remand centres, detention centres and youth custody centres) omit paragaph (c).
	(4) For section 106 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 substitute—
	"106 Interaction with sentences of detention in a young offender institution
	(1) Where a court passes a sentence of detention in a young offender institution in the case of an offender who is subject to a detention and training order, the sentence shall take effect as follows—
	(a) if the offender has been released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102 above, at the beginning of the day on which it is passed;(b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released by virtue of subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) of section 102.
	(2) Where a court makes a detention and training order in the case of an offender who is subject to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution, the order shall take effect as follows—
	(a) if the offender has been released under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release of prisoners), at the beginning of the day on which it is made;(b) if not, either as mentioned in paragraph (a) above or, if the court so orders, at the time when the offender would otherwise be released under that Part.
	(3) Subsection (1)(a) above has effect subject to section 105(3)(a) above and subsection (2)(a) above has effect subject to section 116(6)(b) below.
	(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, where at any time an offender is subject concurrently—
	(a) to a detention and training order, and(b) to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,
	he shall be treated for the purposes of sections 102 to 105 above and of section 98 above (place of detention), Chapter IV of this Part (return to detention) and Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (early release) as if he were subject only to the one of them that was imposed on the later occasion.
	(5) Nothing in subsection (4) above shall require the offender to be released in respect of either the order or the sentence unless and until he is required to be released in respect of each of them.
	(6) Where, by virtue of any enactment giving a court power to deal with a person in a way in which a court on a previous occasion could have dealt with him, a detention and training order for any term is made in the case of a person who has attained the age of 18, the person shall be treated as if he had been sentenced to detention in a young offender institution for the same term."
	(5) Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c. 43) (abolition of sentences of detention in a young offender institution, custody for life, etc.) is repealed."

Lord Judd: The amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. I am very grateful to them for their support for the amendment. I am glad, too, that the amendment is grouped together with Amendment No. 119. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will speak to his own amendment. I shall say only that I am very much on board with it, as it seems to me that if young people are in custody, it is important that the local authorities, with all their special responsibilities and experience, continue to feel a sense of engagement with those children, so that they are there to help with rehabilitation when the children or young people are released and there is continuity in the situation. I am glad that the noble Lord's amendment refers to the importance of trying to provide for continuity not only institutionally but by having the same people going through the same process.
	I do not want to sentimentalise, and I know that I am inclined to talk about this, but my nine years as honorary president of the YMCA had a profound effect on me. One thing that I realised—and I hope that the Committee will forgive my putting it like this—is that if we take rehabilitation seriously, it is important to have someone who takes the hand of the youngster concerned and walks with that youngster through the whole experience of custody, rehabilitation and back into full life outside the institution afterwards. That transition phase afterwards is absolutely crucial in winning the youngster back to society and preventing still further exclusion.
	We have had the statistics on the risks. I referred, in mentioning them, to the tragedy of each individual case, but the tragedy does not really sum up the situation well enough. We should think of the mental anguish and despair of the youngster concerned, who has given up hope. This is a terrible reflection—that we can somehow absorb this statistic and not be angry and indignant about it. I should like to feel that the new department with its new approach—and I believe that there is a lot of new thinking going on there, which I welcome—would have right at the top of its priorities how on earth we are going to stop this human tragedy of youngsters dying in custody. It is our responsibility—all of us—and it is essential for us to register what a terrible reflection it is on all of us that this can happen.
	My first job in government, a long time ago, was as a service Minister. In those days, there was a Minister for each service. I had the privilege of being Minister for the Navy. We had in the Ministry of Defence a very interesting group. I used to tease them by saying that it was rather like painting the Forth Bridge. They were constantly discussing the future shape of the fleet, trying to assess what the real threats were and what kind of fleet we would need to meet the new threats.
	It often occurred to me that, if we were to follow that job through logically and thoroughly, we would send these people off to a country house somewhere with a clean sheet of paper. We should say, "Forget there's a Navy. Analyse the threats, and come up with the maritime dimension of what you believe needs to be done to meet those threats. I always thought that there were one or two who would be horror stricken if there were no maritime dimension, but of course there was.
	I am a realist, although noble Lords do not always feel that I am. I know that you do not meet trouble half way and you should strike compromises—I believe in compromise—that are constructive, positive and dynamic. You should move relevantly to the future by taking a firm position on what you believe ought to be at the beginning. We are inclined to be too mealy-mouthed in our approach and to compromise too soon. Having said that, to go back to my experience with the Navy, I would then tell them, "When you have done that, look over your shoulder and say, my God we've got this thing called the Navy". I told them to look at the Navy as it was and try to make the most dynamic, sensible compromise between what they ideally wanted, what they inherited and what needed to be done.
	Why do I say all that? It is because I am getting to the same point of concern about our penal system. There is a big gap, constantly, between what all the research and evidence demonstrates and what we actually do. More and more, the evidence that is being collected and the work that has been done indicate that most progress towards rehabilitation can be made with people in small units appropriately designed to their particular needs. A variety of opportunities should be available for people with particular kinds of problems.
	I know that my noble friend will say that that is misguided as we go into the next phase of vast expenditure on new prisons—which I am inclined to think will end up as warehouses. He will say that because of economies of scale, we will be able to have much better services available within these warehouses to answer the specialists' needs. But that is the issue. Technically and professionally there may be greater resources—I do not argue against that. I can see in an arid way that there could be economies of scale in that sort of context. But if we take seriously the work that says that you make real progress with small units, and the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, always makes—I hope he will make it again tonight—about the importance of continuity in human relationships in the whole process, it is not much good having technical, professional services and expertise available if that cannot apply in a dynamic, ongoing, complete social experience that makes sense for the youngster concerned.
	I go back to my experience with the Navy and the white sheet of paper. I put forward the thesis that if we could miraculously discard ourselves of the whole infrastructure of the penal system now, take a piece of white paper and say, "What do we need?", we could come up with a tailor-made system to meet all the research and analysis that has been done, which would be not a penny more expensive than what we spend now desperately trying to shore up a system that is not working. I do not believe that we begin to do that rugged, tough exercise of really analysing how far what we have is cost-effective or completely the wrong model. I believe in compromise and am a realist. One has to meet the situation that has been inherited. It is tragic, but one has to. Therefore, there will be compromises, but that is the kind of discipline we need in our thought.
	I am very grateful to the experts in drafting, and for their legal advice, who, as good professionals, without committing themselves to my amendment, explained how it must be phrased in order to be watertight in the context of the Bill. My amendment is intended to say that so much is at stake with children and young people, that the governing principle should be that they do not go to prison, or into the kind of custody we have seen too frequently in the past. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, whom I greatly respect, have argued with me that I am being unreasonable because I go too far and what I want would be impossible. I think of one in particular, who is not with us this evening, with whom I quite often find myself in agreement. My anxiety is that while you have a system in which there are exceptions to putting someone in prison, there will be a tendency among some sentencers not to use prison as an exception, but as a convenience. It is the easy thing to do. One has, therefore, to introduce the approach that says no.
	Of course, society must be protected. Of course, society must be protected. I hope that my having repeated myself comes out in the Official Report because I feel that very strongly. I believe, as we all keep saying, that if society is to be protected, it should not only be in the immediate or short term, but in the long term. That is why the success of rehabilitation work is so vital. I believe that. I accept that in some situations a young person will have to go into custody. In our society, surely, it is only acceptable if, when that happens, it should be into appropriate custody, which is part of the general care system. It has to be secure, but appropriate. I therefore move this amendment with some feeling, because I really have begun to feel exasperated at our failure to take a rugged, robust approach to what is necessary if we are to succeed in our oft-repeated objective of effective rehabilitation. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I am delighted to support this amendment. It was a great privilege to be asked by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to add my name to it. A number of arguments have been advanced about amending Clause 9 of Part 2 of the Bill, which deals with the purpose of sentencing. The purpose of the amendment is to probe in greater detail the Government's intentions. The Minister has stolen my thunder, because my last question to him was going to be, "Is there anything in the pipeline that will address the issue of age and suggest remedies?". He has already answered that, but a number of issues need to be highlighted.
	It is not my intention to repeat the arguments that have been put forward. In fact, in debate after debate there is a general consensus about the purpose of sentencing and so on, and I do not need to repeat that. I can well understand why the Government wish to promote the principal aim of the youth justice system when dealing with offenders up to the age of 18. The questions that I am always asking is, "Do we have the right approach? Should it be restricted to 18? Would the raising of the age from 18 to 21—which the noble Lord rightly put in the amendment for detention centres—actually help to reduce offending and reoffending rates?". I have no doubt whatever that in the final analysis that is probably the reason that they would do so.
	I sat as a magistrate in Sussex—the county that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, comes from—for a very long time. When you are sitting in the court, it is very difficult to distinguish particularly in relation to the age factor and sentencing. I say that because some youngsters aged 12, 13 or 14 are much more mature than some people aged 21. Is that factor important? Or should you not effectively be looking at what is most appropriate for the individual before you? That is fundamental to the amendment.
	In various amendments to Clause 9, a number of noble Lords tried to establish a balance; but the balance that we are lacking at the moment is effectively the age factor. I am not surprised, nor is the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board, that issues of youth justice continue to be very high profile, and we are increasingly focusing on this issue in the debates in your Lordships' House. I am also aware that there is an ongoing 10-year plan to deliver the principles that have been set out in the Youth Justice Board strategy for the secure estate for children and young people.
	There are obvious benefits, which include—this is the suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has spoken about previously—a single-site population of under-18s, small, flexible units, young people being located close to their home community and safe environments that better meet the needs of young people. It is equally important that such provision should apply to people who are under 21 years of age; but until the 10-year plan comes into force, we need to explore how best to provide suitable accommodation and premises where appropriate care and support are provided by the appropriate agencies. This requires amendment to the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, Section 27(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 and Section 43(2) of the Prisons Act 1952. We further propose revisiting Section 106 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. To avoid further technicality, we have identified suitable words to substitute that section and other relevant sections in previous legislation. I have not set out to criticise the work of the Youth Justice Board. In previous debates, I have always complimented the considerable strides we have made since the establishment of the YJB. If its success is to be carried forward, if the intervention is to reduce reoffending—and offending—then it is right that we should be able to fish out the Government's intention.
	I need to exercise some care as one or two issues cause me concern. There are some limitations, and that is why I say this should be probed deeply. First, should we limit the provision of accommodation by local authorities for those up to 21 years old? If that is the question, then we need to talk about capacity, as well as the differing needs of the sentence group, which can vary from between 10 and 21. Secondly, we need to take into account that we have in secure accommodation the most damaged children and their needs ought to be carefully examined. Any change in the age range would need to be carefully planned and properly resourced. It may also require parallel arrangements for the management of those young people in the community and in the court, for example where the respective roles of youth offending teams and probation need to change.
	For these reasons, it would be helpful to have some indication of not only the Government's thinking but also what they have in mind. Then we will likely see some results in terms of the age factors, the special needs they have, and how we could adequately meet that.

Lord Ramsbotham: In rising to speak to my Amendment No. 119 and also warmly to support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I have to declare a certain sense of déjà vu. About three weeks ago, almost at the end of a day in Grand Committee, this amendment was called and there was insufficient time to raise it. I deliberately tabled it both in this Bill and in the Children and Young Persons Bill to emphasise the linkage between these two. My wish, having read all that is in the two Bills, is that perhaps this Bill had been brought by the Minister for Children, supported by people from other ministries, to make the point that there really was a holistic bringing together of what is needed.
	I do not dissent in any way from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I am glad he brought those points out. I have a number of points to make in support of that, really based on my frustration during my five and a half years as chief inspector in trying to persuade the system to listen to what was actually happening, and to put people in charge who were responsible, accountable and making it happen. I will go on repeating that none of these systems will work unless those people are there. It is absurd that in the Prison Service there is no one responsible for children and no one responsible for the young offenders. There are planners, yes, but doers, no.
	My amendment refers to one group which bridges them—those young people sent into custody from care and so who come into custody without parents. Sensibly, when the Youth Justice Board introduced the detention and training order, an order spent half in custody and half in the community, it insisted that, at the beginning of the custody period, there should be a case conference involving those people responsible for planning what the sentence should be and how it should be carried out. It also invited parents to attend. There was another compulsory conference at the end of the sentence where the same people attended, with the idea of making certain that the transition to community was planned, and that it was overseen by the same people. Interestingly, I was finding that up to 60 per cent of those young offenders had parents attending those conferences. Who was missing? It was the people in care.
	This amendment tries to ensure that if people go into custody from care, the person responsible for that care is responsible for them throughout the period they are in custody, to act in loco parentis, to attend conferences, most particularly to plan the resettlement and transition stage and to come with them out into the community. I am seeking to put that burden on the local authorities to make certain that they ensure that a named person who knows this young offender stays with them. I hope that will improve how things happen for them and that we will overcome some of the frightful problems of people in care having no one responsible for them when they come out and having nowhere to go and no one to look after them.
	I am very glad that this amendment was grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, because in each of the various clauses to which he refers the local authorities are mentioned. One lesson that I learnt from looking at young offender establishments is that the more local they can be, the smaller and the more linked to communities they can be. Then those communities can bring in their resources, their people, their work experience and so on. There is then much more chance of engaging with the young persons and being able to oversee their transition into the community and not waste what is done in custody.
	Yesterday I described such a situation being developed by the foyers of localising young offenders, which I really think is an opportunity for hope. I can see no place for these awful Trojan prisons in this context. Going back to what a child needs, lessons about what is needed must be learnt. I hope that in the spirit of these amendments the Minister will pick this up and pass it on to the people responsible and respond to the points that have been made.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My name is attached to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I gladly support it and him and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is my noble friend. I have been a social worker, a children's panel member and a magistrate. I have seen this from both sides. Since then I have had quite a lot to do with the theory of it.
	The realities are a million miles from what they should be. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the transition from prison to the outside world is when all people, but particularly young people, are at their most vulnerable. He will know, as I do, that it is not at all unusual for people to come out with nowhere to go. It makes one's heart bleed to think of what that can mean for people.
	This amendment deals with so-called looked-after children, whose total life experience and life chances are, at a stroke, diminished by being in the care of the state. That says a lot for the care of the state, does it not? Our amendment requires local authority representatives to visit a looked-after child, who is in care, who is then taken into custody. There was a Green Paper which vaguely said that local authorities should carry out an assessment of need of such a child,
	"with an expectation that they will continue to be supported as a child in care".
	Not surprisingly, those expectations have not been realised.
	A vast proportion of children in custody have been in care—up to 49 per cent—with all that that means. At the same time, we all know just how stretched our social services departments are. So the temptation for social workers, who may be miles from where a child has ended up in custody, to park their responsibilities for such a child until such time as he or she is realised is irresistible. That may be the reason—indeed justification—but it does not mean that it is right. Quite the reverse is the case.
	For many children, going into custody is like falling into a black hole. Indeed, one of the three STCs that I have visited, some more than once, dissuaded families from visiting, and did not even invite them to come to see a production of a play that had been a great source of excitement and pride to the participants. Distance and cost were the explanations for the lack of any invitation. Distance and cost are also the explanation for lack of social workers, plus, quite rightly, pressure of work and the temptation perhaps to take comfort from the fact that for a while someone else has the responsibility for the child.
	Clearly, continuity of care by those whose role it is to support vulnerable children in the community who are in theory being looked after by them is essential as well as desirable. There should indeed be, as the amendment proposes, a statutory duty to maintain contact, make an assessment of need and report annually. I have also heard from staff in STCs about the difficulty they have in making or keeping contact with their co-professionals outside, including at the point of release, which is deeply shocking.
	These are children who need more, not less, continuity of care, and it is incumbent on all of us to see that that happens. Once again resources of time, money and manpower are at issue. But if the welfare of the child is indeed paramount and not just another form of words, action must be taken. These children should be at the top of the list, not the bottom where they so shockingly and so often are. We have a pressing duty to see that that is put right.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I am a signatory of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Judd. Like my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, we went through exactly the same process with the Children and Young Persons Act and became very aware of the postcode lottery and how many of those children were left without any sort of contact whatever.
	There are two major reasons why the amendments are crucial. As we have all heard, this is the most vulnerable group of children we can think of. They have already been failed because we have not been able to stop them committing crimes so that they have ended up in custody. My noble friend Lord Judd spoke passionately about the group that we need to reclaim. We need to save them from themselves and their families, from the abuse they have received, and from their lack of learning and training—all of which have been mentioned—if we are to make any progress with the proposed plans. I hope very much that the two amendments will be accepted—whether they are exactly right or not at this moment is almost immaterial. We are focusing on a group that needs maximum help and support.
	An aspect of one of these amendments refers to any contact that has happened in the past and where a relationship had been formed. That is the sort of person that children need to help them through the next period, to advise them on training and make certain that they have somewhere to live. They will engage the local authority and private sector bodies to help with jobs, training, and so on. I was particularly impressed by the Local Government Association. I agree entirely that we need to aim at local placement, whether prison or secure units. They must be increasingly local if they are to succeed. This will also mean that the whole community will gradually feel the responsibility to ensure that they turn into responsible citizens. If they do not, they will be a charge on their own local community. For all those reasons, and the fact that the Local Government Association applauds that approach, wants to see it happen and encourages it, I hope that the Minister will give reassuring answers to the amendment.

Baroness Butler-Sloss: For the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham I strongly support the amendment to Clause 119. Looking at the time, I am not going to say any more than that. I endorse what he said.

The Earl of Listowel: In the Children and Young Persons Bill, the Government introduced a new duty on local authorities to place children within the local authority area unless there were exceptional circumstances. That is pertinent to this Bill and these amendments. It makes sense to keep the children as local as possible.

Lord Kingsland: We are most sympathetic to all the arguments deployed in support of the amendments by all those who have moved them or signed them.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: That was a pithy comment. The debate is a fitting conclusion to an extraordinarily interesting day.
	I say to my noble friend Lord Judd, who is a great humanitarian, that I am sorry about his exasperation. I fully accept that after-care, resettlement and integration of the young person back into society after release from custody is critical to a successful outcome from the youth justice system. I welcome his acknowledgement that the new Ministry of Justice is in a good position, albeit in close co-operation with our friends at the Department for Children, Schools and Families. I acknowledged to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that I would be delighted for my noble friend Lord Adonis to be standing here today taking part. I have watched with interest the debates that he has been having with noble Lords on his Bill. Although it is early days, we are establishing a stronger relationship between the two departments, which is essential to achieving the integrated approach that noble Lords want to see.
	I will not comment any further on the country house clean sheet of paper. I was tempted to talk about aircraft carriers to the noble Lord. I will not refer to Titans tonight, although I anticipate a good discussion tomorrow in the noble Baroness's debate, where my noble friend Lord Carter is also speaking. That should be extremely interesting.
	If young people have to go to custody, they should be placed in accommodation that is fully adapted to the needs of that young person. Noble Lords will know that we are not persuaded that local authority secure children's homes will be suitable for all young people, even if places were available for all of them, which is far from being the case.
	I will not go into the detailed reasons, as they were set out by my noble friend Lord Adonis, but I want to assure noble Lords of two things. First, the Government have taken on board the views of noble Lords who have spoken on the matter, both today and on earlier occasions. Secondly, the Youth Justice Board is committed to developing the secure estate for children and young people to ensure that the accommodation provided continues to become more closely adapted to the needs of those young people.
	In response to the interesting contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I say that, since the YJB assumed responsibility for commissioning and purchasing custodial places in 2000, it has created a diverse and secure estate. Of course, the balance of provision could be improved. We recognise that the provision for the needs of more vulnerable older boys is a particularly worrying issue, which the YJB is working on.
	As I said earlier, we are looking at options for developing the kind of provision required for the young adult offenders to which Members of the Committee have referred. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and other Members of the Committee who have spoken about looked-after children in custody and in general, that we are all aware that they represent some of the most vulnerable children in our society, and that their educational attainment can be pretty poor. In terms of offending, my understanding is that 9 per cent of children in care for a year or more have been cautioned or have committed an offence, compared to 3 per cent for the general child population. We know that many of these problems will continue into adulthood for many looked-after children.
	There are some signs of encouragement. The educational outcomes of children in care have improved quite dramatically: 49 per cent of looked-after children got one GCSE in 2000; it rose to 63 per cent in 2006. In 2000, 7 per cent got five A to C grades at GCSE. That is not a good figure at all, but at least it rose to 12 per cent in 2006. Clearly, there is an awful long way to go, but there are some signs of improvement. Of course, there is more to be done.
	We are listening very carefully to the comments that Members of the Committee have made, both today and when the Children and Young Persons Bill was being debated. The noble Lord referred to attending the sentence planning meetings, which was a very relevant point. Where the local authority shares parental responsibility for a looked-after child, we would expect its representatives to participate in sentence planning meetings. We will deal with this in future revised guidance to the Children Act 1989. That will be necessary; we will have to change the guidance in the light of the legislation currently going through the House, which offers a valuable opportunity.
	We have also made clear our intention to use the delegated powers to impose a requirement for local authorities to arrange visits to those looked-after children who lose their status when they enter custody; namely, those voluntarily accommodated under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989. That will ensure that these children continue to receive the support they need, and that local authorities are aware when they are likely to be discharged from custody. The purpose of the visits will be to assess the young person's needs and establish the kind of continuing support that will be necessary to resettle the young person back into the community. For some young people, this will involve ensuring that, on release from custody, they are provided with appropriate accommodation and that the local authority should therefore arrange for them to become "looked after" once more.
	The new requirements being introduced by the Children and Young Persons Bill will, as I have said, be supported by revisions to regulations and statutory guidance. We will use these revisions to set out that the person responsible for visiting a formerly looked-after child in custody will be an officer of the local authority children's services, rather than a member of the youth offending team and that, where possible, this officer should be a qualified social worker familiar with the child's case.
	I very much understand that we are dealing with one of the most vulnerable groups of young people in our society, and that the outcomes for them have been very poor indeed. It is going to be a tremendous challenge to turn this round, but there are signs that we are beginning to see improvements. I also refer to the children leaving care legislation which is helping, as will the joint work between my department and the Department for Children.
	I understand my noble friend's exasperation, but I hope he will accept that we believe that this is a critical area of work to be undertaken by the Government and our partners in local government. I hope that he might stem his exasperation a little more to see how this turns out.

Lord Judd: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this debate, and I am particularly grateful to noble Lords in general for staying beyond the new conventional hour of 10 o'clock. Seeing the Chief Whip sitting there, I should apologise to her that we have over-run 10 o'clock. I am a bit sorry that we have had the pressure of time because I think that some noble Lords would have liked to say more had there been more time. I always listen very attentively to my noble friend when he replies because he is always so courteous and thorough. He always tries to meet the arguments put forward and explain his own position, even if he does not convince us.
	I believe that this debate has been invaluable in focusing attention on the special needs of children and the 18 to 21 year-old age group. I have a certain amount of hope—I hope not forlorn—that the new Ministry of Justice and the new approach will enable us to do a lot of new thinking together over the years ahead. I do not want to see this Bill as the end of the story. If we are serious about rehabilitation and about protecting the pubic in the long run by successful rehabilitation, it is inevitable that we will move to special provision in all cases for children and the 18 to 21 year-old age group. Anything else is, or is in danger of being, highly counterproductive. In the hope that we will carry this debate forward in the years ahead, to bring that about as soon as possible, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at 10.13 pm